Car game comparisons *hit & run*

Nesh said:
What is "fundamentally better"?
It's as good as every other 60fps racer if not better. So all these other 60fps racing games must really suck more
Click to expand...
Nah, TMT's better. No per-vertex lighting patches there. Fundamentally better as in the technology for the track lighting is the same as what they used on the PS3. Driveclub's on the other hand is a massive leap from that. Baked static vs fully dynamic in this case. The progress doesn't have to be as big as this though, something like Enlighten would also have been a major improvement.

chris1515 said:
GT 6 vs GTS

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=251889293&postcount=12914

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=252099650&postcount=13438

Some people said the track are last gen, a wake up call... And the lightning is not last gen at all...
Click to expand...
The track lighting tech is. People need to actually read my posts before getting all outraged.

iroboto said:
The case for GTS being a technical marvel is sufficient. Please ignore OCASM. He is antagonistic at this point in time and derailing several of you from proper discussion.
Click to expand...
Don't discuss the topic, just dismiss the person. I take this is your thing? You've been doing it the whole thread.
 
OCASM said:
Nah, TMT's better. No per-vertex lighting patches there. Fundamentally better as in the technology for the track lighting is the same as what they used on the PS3. Driveclub's on the other hand is a massive leap from that. Baked static vs fully dynamic in this case. The progress doesn't have to be as big as this though, something like Enlighten would also have been a major improvement.


The track lighting tech is. People need to actually read my posts before getting all outraged.


Don't discuss the topic, just dismiss the person. I take this is your thing? You've been doing it the whole thread.
Click to expand...
anyone here can read your text and see it as antagonistic.

I don't mind biased commentary, but your comments are well beyond biased. Calling GTS last gen is pretty much flaming. You're breaking forum etiquette by discussing on this path. If you require a reminder of the forum rules, you can refresh them here:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/faq-what-what-not-and-how-to-post-in-the-console-forum.36602/

In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, having checkbox items is not an indication of whether a game is superior. It's all about how the developer puts the image together and the result of their work. GTS comes across as highly realistic and if you cannot acknowledge at least that much, you are not interested in discussing graphics.

The thread I have strayed away from because of exactly this. This topic in particular results in nothing more than flame wars which as I have indicated earlier can be done on any other forum.

This is a technical forum, we are supposed to discuss how games technically take advantage of hardware. I'm unsure as to why you feel the need to call all the other racers trash it's clear that anyone with a level head can see they are all impressive and have compromises where they require. But you're not interested in this. I'm unsure what your goals are in discussion, but it's not to discuss techniques or approximations. When you use dismissive language, people get defensive and everyone starts using dismissive language. The thread becomes a crap shoot.

Yes. GTS may have per Vertex lighting in some sections, buts still a reasonable compromise. You can't just suggest GTS is capable of more because title Y has it. You have not done enough evaluation on GTS to know the loads placed on PS4 to make that critique.

Honestly, I don't want to be this morale ass that comes by and lets everyone know how they behave. That's not what I want, and controlling the discussion or limiting viewpoints is not my motive here. But do try your best to see us all at B3D as people with similar interests as opposed to adversaries. Do see us as people to discuss something and to gain from that discussion, as opposed to wtfpwning people. I think, discussion in this manner will benefit everyone. I'm not asking you to drop your points, but it's not going to hurt you or your POV to see people halfway at the least.
 
Last edited:
OCASM said:
Fundamentally better as in the technology for the track lighting is the same as what they used on the PS3.
Click to expand...

Indeed...


According to DF : "Gran Turismo Sport. We've been spending time with the beta version of the game recently and we're happy to report a big leap in fidelity over the series' PS3 audio-visuals: there's a radical revamp in terms of materials, detail, lighting quality and engine acoustics."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-gran-turismo-sport-ps4-pro-analysis
 
Last edited:
As per Linemman's post
So now that I'm comparing Forza 7 and GTS, I see that Forza still has baked shadows. Is that right? Shadows in GT appear fully real-time and relative to the sun position. They also flicker and break-up somewhat, unfortunately.

...but Forza's lighting is static, does not line up with sun position or properly cast on objects. Only car shadows appear dynamic. For some reason, I was thinking real time of day changes would mean real-time world shadows but I guess not. :\
Click to expand...

I think this pretty much answers why everyone identifies Forza as having a fake look compared to GTS and DC. The angles of the lighting and shadows are all wrong relative to the sun. And if they aren't, then Forza is applying some additional light sources around the cars which can't be seen on the track.
 
iroboto said:
As per Linemman's post


I think this pretty much answers why everyone identifies Forza as having a fake look compared to GTS and DC. The angles of the lighting and shadows are all wrong relative to the sun. And if they aren't, then Forza is applying some additional light sources around the cars which can't be seen on the track.
Click to expand...

Drive Club shading is not as good as GT Sport one... It is very visible when the weather is good in Drive Club... Last gen Polyphony shared with other studio Sony first party what they do for having this realistic look and they probably updated the technology....
 
chris1515 said:
Drive Club shading is not as good as GT Sport one... It is very visible when the weather is good in Drive Club... Last gen Polyphony shared with other studio Sony first party what they do for having this realistic look and they probably updated the technology....
Click to expand...
I like the look of GTS. I think it's accuracy is probably the best overall as a package, and I agree with you about DC when it's sunny outside it's shading begins to show some flaws, but not that major, just lacking the consistency that GTS has.
 
I just noted the lack of water reflections in one of the pictures chris linked to.

iroboto said:
anyone here can read your text and see it as antagonistic.

I don't mind biased commentary, but your comments are well beyond biased. Calling GTS last gen is pretty much flaming. You're breaking forum etiquette by discussing on this path. If you require a reminder of the forum rules, you can refresh them here:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/faq-what-what-not-and-how-to-post-in-the-console-forum.36602/

In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, having checkbox items is not an indication of whether a game is superior. It's all about how the developer puts the image together and the result of their work. GTS comes across as highly realistic and if you cannot acknowledge at least that much, you are not interested in discussing graphics.

The thread I have strayed away from because of exactly this. This topic in particular results in nothing more than flame wars which as I have indicated earlier can be done on any other forum.

This is a technical forum, we are supposed to discuss how games technically take advantage of hardware. I'm unsure as to why you feel the need to call all the other racers trash it's clear that anyone with a level head can see they are all impressive and have compromises where they require. But you're not interested in this. I'm unsure what your goals are in discussion, but it's not to discuss techniques or approximations. When you use dismissive language, people get defensive and everyone starts using dismissive language. The thread becomes a crap shoot.

Yes. GTS may have per Vertex lighting in some sections, buts still a reasonable compromise. You can't just suggest GTS is capable of more because title Y has it. You have not done enough evaluation on GTS to know the loads placed on PS4 to make that critique.

Honestly, I don't want to be this morale ass that comes by and lets everyone know how they behave. That's not what I want, and controlling the discussion or limiting viewpoints is not my motive here. But do try your best to see us all at B3D as people with similar interests as opposed to adversaries. Do see us as people to discuss something and to gain from that discussion, as opposed to wtfpwning people. I think, discussion in this manner will benefit everyone. I'm not asking you to drop your points, but it's not going to hurt you or your POV to see people halfway at the least.
Click to expand...
0. If there's any antagonism it's being directed from you to me.
1. Didn't call GTS last-gen. I said the track lighting tech is last-gen.
2. Where did I deny GTS looks very realistic? That's right, nowhere.
3. It's a technical forum, where I posted specific technological traits of the games I'm comparing. Will you ever do that or will you just continue your attempts at dismissing me by strawmanning my arguments?
4. Vertex lighting is not a reasonable compromise. That's worse than GT6's lighting. But it's GT so it gets a pass.
5. This is a comparison thread. Opposition is its very nature. The real issue is some people having very emotional reactions to the idea that GTS is not the best at everything. Funny how nobody had a problem with me calling Forza 7's lighting "awful".

Recop said:
Indeed...


According to DF : "Gran Turismo Sport. We've been spending time with the beta version of the game recently and we're happy to report a big leap in fidelity over the series' PS3 audio-visuals: there's a radical revamp in terms of materials, detail, lighting quality and engine acoustics."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-gran-turismo-sport-ps4-pro-analysis
Click to expand...
What's the part where they detail the advances in track lighting tech?

chris1515 said:
Drive Club shading is not as good as GT Sport one... It is very visible when the weather is good in Drive Club... Last gen Polyphony shared with other studio Sony first party what they do for having this realistic look and they probably updated the technology....
Click to expand...
GTS looks more realistic than DC because of the tonemapping, not the shading. Oh and probably photogrammetry.
 
Last edited:
OCASM said:
I just noted the lack of water reflections in one of the pictures chris linked to.


0. If there's any antagonism it's being directed from you to me.
1. Didn't call GTS last-gen. I said the track lighting tech is last-gen.
2. Where did I deny GTS looks very realistic? That's right, nowhere.
3. It's a technical forum, where I posted specific technological traits of the games I'm comparing. Will you ever do that or will you just continue your attempts at dismissing me by strawmanning my arguments?
4. Vertex lighting is not a reasonable compromise. That's worse than GT6's lighting. But it's GT so it gets a pass.
5. This is a comparison thread. Opposition is its very nature. The real issue is some people having very emotional reactions to the idea that GTS is not the best at everything. Funny how nobody had a problem with me calling Forza 7's lighting "awful".


What's the part where they detail the advances in track lighting tech?


GTS looks more realistic than DC because of the tonemapping, not the shading. Oh and probably photogrammetry.
Click to expand...
"Will you ever do that or will you just continue your attempts at dismissing me by strawmanning my arguments?"

I'm not dismissing you. On the contrary I don't mind your points of view. There's nothing wrong with them, in fact i try to look for what you're talking about, I don't respond because I have no response to your points. I'm not writing to debate what you are debating.

How your arguments present themselves are an entirely different matter.

If you're trying to sway people to see what you see, you're not going about it the right way. You're ripping up a storm about it, and I try my best to read between the lines, and honestly if you've been intending one thing but not another, well I'll be honest, then I've been reading all of your comments wrong. But is that fault on me. You can go back and read those comments, and they are pretty quick one liners. X is horrible. Y is last gen. People are going to react emotionally when you're writing sentences that mix observations with evaluations. That's really is what it's coming down to.

"The real issue is some people having very emotional reactions to the idea that GTS is not the best at everything."
It's how you write it that gets people to agree with you or not about it. GTS is certainly not the best at everything. I think they know that. But when you use general terms like 'lighting' people get offended especially if they don't know what part of the graphic you are referring to.

And if you're thinking, hey, it's not my problem you don't understand lighting, then you should teach them what it is, and they'll believe you.

Here's the TLDR; You're points are things that "you" value. They don't value it, but you do, if you never came to this thread, no one else would have made those comments. If you don't want to spend the time to teach them what you value, then it will never be valued by your audience. They will defensive about a game they think looks very good though, and never benefit from knowing the difference between tone mapping, photogammetry and GI.

Unlike other posters who just post shit (that I've put on ignore) I have not put you on ignore because i can see you're trying to bring something to the table. but at times you do come across as not trying to improve the discussion.

Funny how nobody had a problem with me calling Forza 7's lighting "awful".
Click to expand...
I have no energy left to defend F7. And the rest of the people have left this thread because it's not worth getting upset over.

You have an opportunity to teach people something. I'll leave it at that. Try another way of showing people what you know. I'm going to stop bugging you about this now and stay on the topic at hand.
 
Last edited:
iroboto said:
anyone here can read your text and see it as antagonistic.

I don't mind biased commentary, but your comments are well beyond biased. Calling GTS last gen is pretty much flaming. You're breaking forum etiquette by discussing on this path. If you require a reminder of the forum rules, you can refresh them here:
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/faq-what-what-not-and-how-to-post-in-the-console-forum.36602/

In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, having checkbox items is not an indication of whether a game is superior. It's all about how the developer puts the image together and the result of their work. GTS comes across as highly realistic and if you cannot acknowledge at least that much, you are not interested in discussing graphics.

The thread I have strayed away from because of exactly this. This topic in particular results in nothing more than flame wars which as I have indicated earlier can be done on any other forum.

This is a technical forum, we are supposed to discuss how games technically take advantage of hardware. I'm unsure as to why you feel the need to call all the other racers trash it's clear that anyone with a level head can see they are all impressive and have compromises where they require. But you're not interested in this. I'm unsure what your goals are in discussion, but it's not to discuss techniques or approximations. When you use dismissive language, people get defensive and everyone starts using dismissive language. The thread becomes a crap shoot.

Yes. GTS may have per Vertex lighting in some sections, buts still a reasonable compromise. You can't just suggest GTS is capable of more because title Y has it. You have not done enough evaluation on GTS to know the loads placed on PS4 to make that critique.

Honestly, I don't want to be this morale ass that comes by and lets everyone know how they behave. That's not what I want, and controlling the discussion or limiting viewpoints is not my motive here. But do try your best to see us all at B3D as people with similar interests as opposed to adversaries. Do see us as people to discuss something and to gain from that discussion, as opposed to wtfpwning people. I think, discussion in this manner will benefit everyone. I'm not asking you to drop your points, but it's not going to hurt you or your POV to see people halfway at the least.
Click to expand...
iroboto said:
"Will you ever do that or will you just continue your attempts at dismissing me by strawmanning my arguments?"

I'm not dismissing you. On the contrary I don't mind your points of view. There's nothing wrong with them, in fact i try to look for what you're talking about, I don't respond because I have no response to your points. I'm not writing to debate what you are debating.

How your arguments present themselves are an entirely different matter.

If you're trying to sway people to see what you see, you're not going about it the right way. You're ripping up a storm about it, and I try my best to read between the lines, and honestly if you've been intending one thing but not another, well I'll be honest, then I've been reading all of your comments wrong. But is that fault on me. You can go back and read those comments, and they are pretty quick one liners. X is horrible. Y is last gen. People are going to react emotionally when you're writing sentences that mix observations with evaluations. That's really is what it's coming down to.

"The real issue is some people having very emotional reactions to the idea that GTS is not the best at everything."
It's how you write it that gets people to agree with you or not about it. GTS is certainly not the best at everything. I think they know that. But when you use general terms like 'lighting' people get offended especially if they don't know what part of the graphic you are referring to.

And if you're thinking, hey, it's not my problem you don't understand lighting, then you should teach them what it is, and they'll believe you.

Here's the TLDR; You're points are things that "you" value. They don't value it, but you do, if you never came to this thread, no one else would have made those comments. If you don't want to spend the time to teach them what you value, then it will never be valued by your audience. They will defensive about a game they think looks very good though, and never benefit from knowing the difference between tone mapping, photogammetry and GI.

Unlike other posters who just post shit (that I've put on ignore) I have not put you on ignore because i can see you're trying to bring something to the table. but at times you do come across as not trying to improve the discussion.


I have no energy left to defend F7. And the rest of the people have left this thread because it's not worth getting upset over.

You have an opportunity to teach people something. I'll leave it at that. Try another way of showing people what you know. I'm going to stop bugging you about this now and stay on the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
I applaud your efforts...At least we (well you actually) have found a worthy nickname for you:

Honestly, I don't want to be this morale ass that comes by and lets everyone know how they behave.
Click to expand...

Iroboto: the gamer's moral comp-ass.
 
I looked up Trackmania Turbo shots on PS4... In what way does it have superior, more "current-gen" lighting?

GTS

g6ZcFF.png


XG9JAb.png


WuXpFf.png


http://i.cubeupload.com/V3jGB8.png
https://i.cubeupload.com/bnuPrp.png
https://i.cubeupload.com/laxaR6.png

TrackmaniaTurbo
Y8ci4y.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/ar.../9/PS4_006.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/ar.../9/PS4_008.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/jpg
 
iroboto said:
"Will you ever do that or will you just continue your attempts at dismissing me by strawmanning my arguments?"

I'm not dismissing you. On the contrary I don't mind your points of view. There's nothing wrong with them, in fact i try to look for what you're talking about, I don't respond because I have no response to your points. I'm not writing to debate what you are debating.

How your arguments present themselves are an entirely different matter.

If you're trying to sway people to see what you see, you're not going about it the right way. You're ripping up a storm about it, and I try my best to read between the lines, and honestly if you've been intending one thing but not another, well I'll be honest, then I've been reading all of your comments wrong. But is that fault on me. You can go back and read those comments, and they are pretty quick one liners. X is horrible. Y is last gen. People are going to react emotionally when you're writing sentences that mix observations with evaluations. That's really is what it's coming down to.

"The real issue is some people having very emotional reactions to the idea that GTS is not the best at everything."
It's how you write it that gets people to agree with you or not about it. GTS is certainly not the best at everything. I think they know that. But when you use general terms like 'lighting' people get offended especially if they don't know what part of the graphic you are referring to.

And if you're thinking, hey, it's not my problem you don't understand lighting, then you should teach them what it is, and they'll believe you.

Here's the TLDR; You're points are things that "you" value. They don't value it, but you do, if you never came to this thread, no one else would have made those comments. If you don't want to spend the time to teach them what you value, then it will never be valued by your audience. They will defensive about a game they think looks very good though, and never benefit from knowing the difference between tone mapping, photogammetry and GI.

Unlike other posters who just post shit (that I've put on ignore) I have not put you on ignore because i can see you're trying to bring something to the table. but at times you do come across as not trying to improve the discussion.


I have no energy left to defend F7. And the rest of the people have left this thread because it's not worth getting upset over.

You have an opportunity to teach people something. I'll leave it at that. Try another way of showing people what you know. I'm going to stop bugging you about this now and stay on the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
I have been very specific about the things I have discussed. If you disagree with anything I've (actually) said then we can discuss it but it's difficult when most of the responses I get are either strawmans, ad hominems or outright dismissals. It's not my job to manage the emotions of other people, that's everybody's individual responsibility. If you can't handle negative criticism about a game you love then maybe this thread is not for you.

vspectra said:
I looked up Trackmania Turbo shots on PS4... In what way does it have superior, more "current-gen" lighting?

GTS

g6ZcFF.png


XG9JAb.png


WuXpFf.png


http://i.cubeupload.com/V3jGB8.png
https://i.cubeupload.com/bnuPrp.png
https://i.cubeupload.com/laxaR6.png

TrackmaniaTurbo
Y8ci4y.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/ar.../9/PS4_006.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2015/ar.../9/PS4_008.bmp.jpg/EG11/quality/90/format/jpg
Click to expand...
I don't see any static per-vertex lighting in TMT, specially for direct lighting in main sections of the track, do you?
 
Recop said:
You only have to use your eyes... the lighting simply looks much better on GTS, especially on trees.

And according to DF, GTS has GI unlike GT5/6 : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=252382743&postcount=13710
Click to expand...
"You only have to use your own eyes". Is this the type of arguments I should make, @iroboto ?

The indirect lighting (and at least some of the direct) is all baked to low res lightmaps and vertex colors. Hence fundamentally it's last-gen. I'd actually be surprised if the baked lighting in GT5/6 didn't have at least one light bounce. Then again didn't those games have some day-night transitions? Sounds like GTS isn't even up to par with previous offerings since it's completely static.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
ARK: Survival Evolved is the new Crysis
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
PenguinJim
P
Cyan
Project Cars [PS4, XO]
19 20 21
Replies
414
Views
55K
BRiT
BRiT
P
Portable console for all PC games - PGS
2
Replies
31
Views
13K
Cyan
Cyan
A
Forza: A Test Case for next gen hardware discussion
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
tuna
T
L
Next Gen will drag the Tumor on for Gaming. It's Bleak?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
18K
antwan
A
Back
Top