Car game comparisons *hit & run*

Yes and it is amazing how well it holds up against the PC version even though it uses the highest settings. GTS is also held back by technical limitations if not more than Turn 10. Both PS4 platforms are weaker than PC or X, and it makes you wonder what PD would have achieved if they had less limitations

 

It is funny but the day the weather will come back into GT Sport on PS4/PS4 Pro or more probably GT Sports 2 on PS5 the GT S technology is better for a fully dynamics weather...

 

So @OCASM what do you think now after seeing the video? Does it really suck? Seems to be praised a lot for something that uses "per vertex lighting"?

 

Lighting :

 

DF made it sound like FM7 was using more "last gen" stuff to get the 60fps, I wonder if Ocasm is going to call them out?!

I'm being factitious, both games look great and both games make compromises (like all do) to achieve the goal.

 

i think once i come back from japan i'll grab the game.

 

That lighting is amazing. Btw, is this the Pro version right? I see MB which I think is absent from the standard version

edit: yep 60fps replays

 

Something not captured by graphic talk is the AI. I am impressed by the AI in GTS. They don't stick to the lines and different cars seem to have different aggressiveness. The reviews sound like the AI is broekn in FM7. I'm not sure how it is in PC2.

 

Yes, it is the Pro version and there is motion blur if you choose the performance mode.

 

I wonder what Forza could have looked like with some type of checkerboard or temporal reconstruction. Native 4k is going to be a bad choice, almost always.

 

You can ask about them here. I don't have the obligation to teach them though.

The PBR stuff is true. TM's car shader doesn't even take fresnel into account lol.

More goalpost moving...

I don't see how that video refutes any of the specific points I've made throughout the discussion. Does it disprove the use of per-vertex lighting? The downgrade from dynamic TOD to fully static?

I called FM7's lighting "awful" a few pages back. For some unknow reason that didn't bother anybody to the point where it was even ignored. Mhh...

Goes to show the importance of good tonemapping. Maybe Turn10 will learn one day.

Still good be nice if they updated their specular model to GGX.

 

"Then we come to lighting. Both games use pre-computed world lighting but for our money, the global illumination data used in Gran Turismo Sport enables more natural and realistic-looking scenes than any other racing game on the market."

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

A bit different than "garbage" lighting, isn't it ?



So bad...

 

I'm not sure if they want the Scorpio version to look leagues better than the XBO version.

If there is to be reconstruction we'd also see it on the base model.

 

Also, MS needs to sell the true 4k thing for their first X games.

 

How do the max PC settings @ 1080p compare to the 1S?

 

Good good. One is last gen and one is awful. I'm waiting on your game to come out, it better have cars!

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-forza-motorsport-7-demo-comparison

 

I think around high settings mostly, some dipping below to medium/low. X should run close to everything ultra from what I recall.

 

Again, twisting facts: I didn't say you have an obligation to teach anybody.

 

You're not following the conversation. I already updated my evaluation of the track lighting tech from "garbage" to "last-gen" Except for the use of vertex lighting in a main section of a track. That's still garbage.

So discussion is allowed only for developers? Where can I check your published work?

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore.