Car game comparisons *hit & run*

[iroboto]

"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.

In this scenario, if you want to respond to it (I personally don't have the energy for it anymore), but I would screen cap, and mark which areas are tone mapping (maybe with some references) and other areas with baked GI (maybe with some simple references) and what is texture work. I think this will go a long way here. But it's also exhausting to write up.

If you don't mind me linking to another post, I wrote a quick post once about command processors. I got slammed by a AMD engineer on this board. I think he realized that there was no way we could know, so he immediately spent the time to write a Command Processors 101 post for us to read afterwards that was pretty insightful on how that piece of hardware really worked.

I'm not sure if you want to do it. But if not, I just wouldn't respond. Thing is, before you, there have been other posters who work in the industry of graphics and also while they were technically very smart about it, but didn't necessarily go the distance to really explain how the image is being put together. Naturally people would get upset, until they got into deep detail to convince people otherwise. Images are so well put together now a days, its hard even for other developers to be able to spot the techniques used in the images. So you can imagine how hard it is for us layman to see it.

On a personal note, I would be interested in your breakdown of GTS lighting, into individual parts so that I can be more knowledgeable on the subject and identify those items. Be really able to separate different parts of what's happening. I think it's insightful because most other posters will be able to see things you can't. Which is helpful in obtaining that critical eye you have.

It's like, if all I ate was fast food, and you were eating at 3 Michelin star restaurants -- and I told you KFC is the best food ever. You'd be like, oh dear!

 

[Nesh]

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.


I don't see any static per-vertex lighting in TMT, specially for direct lighting in main sections of the track, do you?

Whatever the case, GTS looks better.

 

[OCASM]

In this scenario, if you want to respond to it (I personally don't have the energy for it anymore), but I would screen cap, and mark which areas are tone mapping (maybe with some references) and other areas with baked GI (maybe with some simple references) and what is texture work. I think this will go a long way here. But it's also exhausting to write up.

If you don't mind me linking to another post, I wrote a quick post once about command processors. I got slammed by a AMD engineer on this board. I think he realized that there was no way we could know, so he immediately spent the time to write a Command Processors 101 post for us to read afterwards that was pretty insightful on how that piece of hardware really worked.

I'm not sure if you want to do it. But if not, I just wouldn't respond. Thing is, before you, there have been other posters who work in the industry of graphics and also while they were technically very smart about it, but didn't necessarily go the distance to really explain how the image is being put together. Naturally people would get upset, until they got into deep detail to convince people otherwise. Images are so well put together now a days, its hard even for other developers to be able to spot the techniques used in the images. So you can imagine how hard it is for us layman to see it.

On a personal note, I would be interested in your breakdown of GTS lighting, into individual parts so that I can be more knowledgeable on the subject and identify those items. Be really able to separate different parts of what's happening. I think it's insightful because most other posters will be able to see things you can't. Which is helpful in obtaining that critical eye you have.

It's like, if all I ate was fast food, and you were eating at 3 Michelin star restaurants -- and I told you KFC is the best food ever. You'd be like, oh dear!

Not to be mean but you'd think that in a forum dedicated to discussing rendering technologies there would't be a need to explain basic terminology. Besides, there's Google, which gives access to lots of better resources than a forum post. Also, with the availability of freely available rendering engines you can get your hands dirty and get an even deeper understanding than from reading and watching videos.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me or getting angry at my harsh remarks, just the lack of actual discussion.

Whatever the case, GTS looks better.

Define "better".

 

[eloic]

Not to be mean but you'd think that in a forum dedicated to discussing rendering technologies there would't be a need to explain basic terminology. Besides, there's Google, which gives access to lots of better resources than a forum post.

Excuse me, but I don't think it's you who decide what is to be discussed/asked in a forum just because you can find some info in Google. @iroboto was trying to "convert" the current argument into an opportunity for you to better explain your technical observations. That's all.

Moreover, I don't think this is an issue about basic terminology, for obvious reasons. Sure, you have a point and I can understand it, IMO, but other people have it too, and we've got to a point where the discussion may be pretty absurd.

 

[Recop]

"You only have to use your own eyes". Is this the type of arguments I should make

Sometimes, you don't need more... and i only said that GTS lighting looks more natural, not more.

I mean 1+1=2

Another interesting post on Neogaf : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=252478113&postcount=13750

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.

Last-gen or not, they did the best they could with the hardware they had. Polyphony is not the problem, it's the PS4.

Do you have a better example in another racing sim at 1080p/60fps (+ stable performances) ? The anwser is no...

 

[iroboto]

Not to be mean but you'd think that in a forum dedicated to discussing rendering technologies there would't be a need to explain basic terminology. Besides, there's Google, which gives access to lots of better resources than a forum post. Also, with the availability of freely available rendering engines you can get your hands dirty and get an even deeper understanding than from reading and watching videos.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me or getting angry at my harsh remarks, just the lack of actual discussion.


Define "better".

That's fine, I just move on then. And it happens a lot. There are a lot of posts that go unanswered and it's because the reply is not significant enough for the person to respond. Shifty Geezer's signature is something along the lines of "Remember you don't need to reply to everything!" or something to that effect. And if specific posts are consistently bothering you, that's usually where I put them on ignore, because I know it will irritate me seeing their posts.

As for Googling answers; usually we have etiquette such that if you want to prove that something, you must provide proof of it. So for instance, no baked GI, you'd setup a shot where there should be baked GI and show its not there. etc. It's on the person who made the claim to prove it, not on those following along. We do it this way otherwise we'd have to accept every statement there is, and we've had all sorts of personalities here try to pass bogus statements as fact.

Lastly, remember that not everyone can be convinced, much like you can't please or save everyone in the world. Don't take that responsibility onto yourself. We still have flat Earther societies here on Earth, something I think is completely fundamental. So try not to feel that by not responding to certain posts you've lost the discussion either. Someone with enough knowledge will either acknowledge your post the way you want to discuss it; if there is something to discuss.

 

[mrcorbo]

Not to be mean but you'd think that in a forum dedicated to discussing rendering technologies there would't be a need to explain basic terminology. Besides, there's Google, which gives access to lots of better resources than a forum post. Also, with the availability of freely available rendering engines you can get your hands dirty and get an even deeper understanding than from reading and watching videos.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me or getting angry at my harsh remarks, just the lack of actual discussion.


Define "better".

The fact that this thread exists outside of the technical forum should be an indication of the character of discussion to be found inside.

The fact that this is a comparison thread should be an indication of the character of discussion to be found inside.

If you want to engage in the types of discussions likely to take place in such a thread, a thread perhaps intended to attract and contain those "discussions", you've come to the right place.

 

[OCASM]

Excuse me, but I don't think it's you who decide what is to be discussed/asked in a forum just because you can find some info in Google. @iroboto was trying to "convert" the current argument into an opportunity for you to better explain your technical observations. That's all.

Moreover, I don't think this is an issue about basic terminology, for obvious reasons. Sure, you have a point and I can understand it, IMO, but other people have it too, and we've got to a point where the discussion may be pretty absurd.

I don't decide what other people post but by the same token other posters don't get to decide what I post. Is technical discussion against the rules in this particular sub-forum?

Sometimes, you don't need more... and i only said that GTS lighting looks more natural, not more.

I mean 1+1=2

Another interesting post on Neogaf : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=252478113&postcount=13750



Last-gen or not, they did the best they could with the hardware they had. Polyphony is not the problem, it's the PS4.

Do you have a better example in another racing sim at 1080p/60fps (+ stable performances) ? The anwser is no...

Following the conversation back you indeed used the term "better" and it was in reference to advances in the track lighting tech from what PD used in the PS3 games. Now you're moving the goalpost to "looks more natural".

I haven't seen other PS4 sims with per-vertex lighting in main sections of a track. Have you?

That's fine, I just move on then. And it happens a lot. There are a lot of posts that go unanswered and it's because the reply is not significant enough for the person to respond. Shifty Geezer's signature is something along the lines of "Remember you don't need to reply to everything!" or something to that effect. And if specific posts are consistently bothering you, that's usually where I put them on ignore, because I know it will irritate me seeing their posts.

As for Googling answers; usually we have etiquette such that if you want to prove that something, you must provide proof of it. So for instance, no baked GI, you'd setup a shot where there should be baked GI and show its not there. etc. It's on the person who made the claim to prove it, not on those following along. We do it this way otherwise we'd have to accept every statement there is, and we've had all sorts of personalities here try to pass bogus statements as fact.

Lastly, remember that not everyone can be convinced, much like you can't please or save everyone in the world. Don't take that responsibility onto yourself. We still have flat Earther societies here on Earth, something I think is completely fundamental. So try not to feel that by not responding to certain posts you've lost the discussion either. Someone with enough knowledge will either acknowledge your post the way you want to discuss it; if there is something to discuss.

Like I said, I'm fine with people disagreeing with my comments. Engaging in ad-hominems, strawmans or mere dismissals is something else.

The fact that this thread exists outside of the technical forum should be an indication of the character of discussion to be found inside.

The fact that this is a comparison thread should be an indication of the character of discussion to be found inside.

If you want to engage in the types of discussions likely to take place in such a thread, a thread perhaps intended to attract and contain those "discussions", you've come to the right place.

You don't have to participate in the technical part of the discussion if you don't want to, but if you choose to do so then my argument stands.

 

[bunge]

Following the conversation back you indeed used the term "better" and it was in reference to advances in the track lighting tech from what PD used in the PS3 games. Now you're moving the goalpost to "looks more natural".

It’s very possible to use multiple techniques and gain a better look over some “pure” solution.

 

[eloic]

I don't decide what other people post but by the same token other posters don't get to decide what I post. Is technical discussion against the rules in this particular sub-forum?

Stop twisting the facts. It's you who said that some things can be just searched in Google, as if it doesn't make any sense to ask about them here. On the other hand, I didn't say the same thing, nor others have, so it's not the same case.

 

[mrcorbo]

You don't have to participate in the technical part of the discussion if you don't want to, but if you choose to do so then my argument stands.

You seemed surprised by the types of responses you were getting. I'm just pointing out why I'm not surprised by them.

 

[Nesh]

Define "better".

lighting is more realistic, multiple light sources affect the environment and cars, physical based rendering is more effective with multiple materials responding differently and correctly with light sources, and even small sections exhibit elements of ambient light

 

[chris1515]

John Linneman Digitalfoundry said the video comparison between Forza 7 and GT Sport will be available today 24 minutes long...

 

[Nesh]

Its here
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-gran-turismo-sport-vs-forza-motorsport-7

 

[iroboto]

Its here
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-gran-turismo-sport-vs-forza-motorsport-7

Great article.

 

[ultragpu]

I guess GT Sport wins overall by the sound of it since there's no conclusion from DF? But whether it's due to the old Xbox One root holding Forza 7 back or the superior technical mastery of Polyphony we will never know.

 

[Recop]

Following the conversation back you indeed used the term "better" and it was in reference to advances in the track lighting tech from what PD used in the PS3 games. Now you're moving the goalpost to "looks more natural".

Then you should follow the discussion better. I only speak about the visual result. This is what i don't care about your GI.

I haven't seen other PS4 sims with per-vertex lighting in main sections of a track. Have you?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-gran-turismo-sport-vs-forza-motorsport-7

It's a pointless argument...

 

[chris1515]

I guess GT Sport wins overall by the sound of it since there's no conclusion from DF? But whether it's due to the old Xbox One root holding Forza 7 back or the superior technical mastery of Polyphony we will never know.

GT Sports has it roots in the PS4 after like I said the best photorealistic lightning comes from Japanese Dev Kojima productions with MGS 5 and in the future Death Stranding and Square Enix with FF 15 are great too...

For me GT S is clearly a reboot and they will probably iterate on the tech on PS4 and PS5...

For example the scapes/showroom cars are more detailed than the gameplay/replay/normal photo mode and LOD0 model of FM7 or PCars 2 on PC maybe they can use this model for PS5...

 

[ultragpu]

GT Sports has it roots in the PS4 after like I said the best photorealistic lightning comes from Japanese Dev Kojima productions with MGS 5 and in the future Death Stranding and Square Enix with FF 15 are great too...

For me GT S is clearly a reboot and they will probably iterate on the tech on PS4 and PS5...

For example the scapes/showroom cars are more detailed than the gameplay/replay/normal photo mode and LOD0 model of FM7 or PCars 2 on PC maybe they can use this model for PS5...

Or maybe it's a combination of the two I guess. Despite GT also has its root in OG PS4, it's still 500 gigaflops more powerful thus the base technology would be more advanced outside of resolution. Yeah I do recall Yamauchi mentioning the cars in GTS are PS5 ready . Perhaps he's referring to the Showroom asset after all.

 

[chris1515]

Or maybe it's a combination of the two I guess. Despite GT also has its root in OG PS4, it's still 500 gigaflops more powerful thus the base technology would be more advanced outside of resolution. Yeah I do recall Yamauchi mentioning the cars in GTS are PS5 ready . Perhaps he's referring to the Showroom asset after all.

Last gen with an inferior GPU the lightning was superior on GT 5 and GT 6 like said in the article it is more having the best photography director and a team working on lightning and shading to satisfy the director...