The resolution and distance in the reflections are low even for PS5. The geometry in the environments need to increase and the LOD on cars during gameplay is a bit aggressive.
Also the car physics isnt very accurate.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2023]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Also the car physics isnt very accurate.
GT looks incredible. Polyphony Digital did a fantastic job making an optimized game that looks visually stunning, and their attention to detail is only matched by their ability to choose which details to focus their attention on. FM does things that are technically better, but it's hard to focus on the quality of tree rendering when the tail lights and car paint quality pop so much more on GT and are front and center in the players viewpoint.
There are many tradeoffs made in both games, and their respective developers went with what they thought was best.
IMHO, GT7 cars, roads, grass/shrubbery, and general attention to detail are better overall, but FM has better anti-aliasing (at least in some of the scenes that John chose) and greater populous aspects such as tree density or certain crowd scenes. FM has the more technical RTGI/Shadowing showcase; however, the techniques look more subdued by other tradeoffs, such as the flat and generic-looking grass or the paint (shaders) quality and reflections looking somewhat drab (or overly saturated with light) because of the RTGI/Shadowing. Buildings, houses, and overall course designs are pretty much a draw, but certain structures in FM look better, IQ-wise.
Anyhow, GT7 still blows to me, regardless of its next-generation status. When stacked against Forza Horizon 5 (yeah, I know, one is more of a simulator and the other is more of an arcade racer), GT7 just looks dated in comparison, both artistically and tech-wise.
IMHO, GT7 cars, roads, grass/shrubbery, and general attention to detail are better overall, but FM has better anti-aliasing (at least in some of the scenes that John chose) and greater populous aspects such as tree density or certain crowd scenes. FM has the more technical RTGI/Shadowing showcase; however, the techniques look more subdued by other tradeoffs, such as the flat and generic-looking grass or the paint (shaders) quality and reflections looking somewhat drab (or overly saturated with light) because of the RTGI/Shadowing. Buildings, houses, and overall course designs are pretty much a draw, but certain structures in FM look better, IQ-wise.
Anyhow, GT7 still blows to me, regardless of its next-generation status. When stacked against Forza Horizon 5 (yeah, I know, one is more of a simulator and the other is more of an arcade racer), GT7 just looks dated in comparison, both artistically and tech-wise.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora - PS5/Xbox Series X|S Tech Review - Graceful Scaling vs Maxed PC
If you play in 3rd person maybe. As a sim racer, I'm pretty much always in cockpit/1st person view though, and my view focus is always outside of the car. So the quality of the environments actually does stick out more to me in these sorts of games in actual gameplay situations.
Shows what can be done and why consoles can be inherently better balanced than PC as a fixed target. I wonder how many businesses would justify that level of expense in Quality Control when banging out something a bit rough doesn't appear to impact sales notably?
The Game Awards don't have any technical categories or even recognition of technical accomplishment. DF should have their own awards!
The Game Awards don't have any technical categories or even recognition of technical accomplishment. DF should have their own awards!
The tooling and methodology may not be identical but as far as know conceptually what they're doing here isn't really unique or recent. This has always been the advantage for consoles in the multiplatform era over the PC in that optimization starts with and tightly integrates the design and software engineering sides. It was not just "low level" programing extracting more from the hardware but that even the fundamental design of the game was crafted with those targets in mind. This is also similarly why the "lead" platform tends to be a factor as well (I wrote something about this in that other thread but forgot to hit post a few days ago).
In terms of PC this is also why you have massive diminishing returns in terms of the visual return given the hardware because the PC addon settings are just that. A game actually optimized for the RTX 4090 (and say a 7800X3D) as the "target platform" would likely be designed completely differently for maximum scope/visual impact, it's not just a matter of code optimizations after the fact. As an related aside this is likely a reason why Nvidia (and I suspect other IHVs will follow) in pushing RT because RT is more scalable to sell those high end GPUs over the typical raster higher settings.
Somewhat related to the above it's also worth mentioning that sometimes hardware gains are leveraged just to simplify the development process. I think it might be in one of the other similar threads but someone did bring up why say much faster console CPUs would be limiting now for 60 fps if 60 fps was possible in past much slower CPUs. Well in order to have fit in that budget there was likely a lot of effectively design "tricks" used to give the impression of physics/simulation/logic (sometimes with a trade off in memory) but at some point scaling that up starts to become exponentially complex.
In terms of PC this is also why you have massive diminishing returns in terms of the visual return given the hardware because the PC addon settings are just that. A game actually optimized for the RTX 4090 (and say a 7800X3D) as the "target platform" would likely be designed completely differently for maximum scope/visual impact, it's not just a matter of code optimizations after the fact. As an related aside this is likely a reason why Nvidia (and I suspect other IHVs will follow) in pushing RT because RT is more scalable to sell those high end GPUs over the typical raster higher settings.
Somewhat related to the above it's also worth mentioning that sometimes hardware gains are leveraged just to simplify the development process. I think it might be in one of the other similar threads but someone did bring up why say much faster console CPUs would be limiting now for 60 fps if 60 fps was possible in past much slower CPUs. Well in order to have fit in that budget there was likely a lot of effectively design "tricks" used to give the impression of physics/simulation/logic (sometimes with a trade off in memory) but at some point scaling that up starts to become exponentially complex.
Another Series S game with a strong showing now that we're past cross gen, with features well beyond what last gen consoles could have delivered.
Two or three years of shit PS4 ports being thrown at it really didn't allow the Series S to do itself justice.
Still should have had 12GB of ram tho.
Two or three years of shit PS4 ports being thrown at it really didn't allow the Series S to do itself justice.
Still should have had 12GB of ram tho.
Microsoft did a split low and high end console at the onset for this generation. The Xbox Series S, the lower end version, has 10GB of unified memory. The Xbox Series X, higher end version, and the PS5 both have 16GB unified memory.
The Xbox Series S has slower APU than the X especially in terms of GPU performance. The X has about x3 more tflops and x2.5 more peak memory bandwidth off the top of my head. CPU is clocked slightly faster.
Games will basically run on lower graphics fidelity and/or resolution and/or FPS.
There was enforcement of feature parity but that have some case by case exemptions now. BG3 for example doesnt support split screen on the S.
You're a heretic for even asking!
at the very least, every studio is doing step 1
Big difference of AF on XSX (noAF is back!). I wonder if it's caused by memory problems (bandwidth? size?). The devs said at some point there will be some compromises on Xbox series, that's probably that. And obviously no split-screen on XSS even after months of optimizations. Lack of split-screen was the logical outcome of lack of available memory many of us predicted years ago would cause dev troubles on XSS hardware.
I think people are just assuming that it's caused by lack of memory. I'm not seeing a big difference in memory usage between SP and split-screen (on PC) while there's a far more significant GPU performance cost. I think it's quite possible that the S simply doesn't have enough GPU grunt.
This might also explain why the bigger consoles can only run split-screen at 30fps.
- Status
Similar threads
