yeah i've talked about it before. the reason is because the consoles came out in 2005, so it's not surprising 2003 era stuff is in the ballpark. just shows how damn old this gen is.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2012]
- Thread starter AlNom
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
yeah i've talked about it before. the reason is because the consoles came out in 2005, so it's not surprising 2003 era stuff is in the ballpark. just shows how damn old this gen is.
still, saying that by 2004 most PCs could only play the game in 480p is inaccurate... most PC gamers were playing games at 1024x768, in midrange cards it was probably a good thing to lower the rest to 800x600 for this game, but
9700PRO was almost 2 years old already...
HokutoNoKen
Newcomer
Digital Foundry vs. Forza Horizon
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-forza-horizon
/ Ken
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-forza-horizon
/ Ken
Ah.. might be a bit confusing there? They're dynamic lights (headlights), just not for the reflections. Or something. They seemed weird in the demo sometimes.
edit:
I think the weirdness was when there were multiple cars close to one another - headlights overlapped, but the brightness didn't change much? So if one of those light sources veers off, the car being lit didn't seem to change as there was still another car lighting it up.
edit:
updated:
Yeah, like it doesn't get super bright. There's the normal brightness fall-off, but when they overlap, it's not adding a lot of brightness on top of what you get from a single light.
Looks a bit strange on the cars more than the ground.
Kameradschaft
Regular
Such a great looking game, the 720p framebuffer plus the 4MSAA+ dynamic FXAA really add a whole lot of polish in the visuals (wish more games were able to do that) and the lighting is gorgeous.
Also this may be a stupid question but is it the first time that object motion blur is implemented in a racing game? I don't recall another racing game doing that.
Overall a really good read (as always) for a very impressive looking game, can't wait to see the tech articles for the big upcoming titles (Blops 2, Assassin's Creed 3 & Halo 4).
Billy Idol
Legend
Hats off to the dev! Great achievement: no aliasing and solid framerate...astounding!
Yeah, instead of having a detailed picture in a smooth frame rate, blur the hell out the picture to make it appear to be moving. It is the future!
Motion blur is natural. If you can't generate 200 fps to gain natural blur, it's better to simulate it than not at 30fps. And targeting 30fps means a lot more graphical features that'd need to be dropped to hit 60fps.
Very impressive technically!
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
GT5 does in replay mode (30Hz), IIRC.
Does the in-game lighting match that of GT5? I noticed the headlights didn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
There is nothing natural about motion blur in video (and video games). As far as I know nobody really knows the way our eyes and brain seem to "blur" moving objects. A lot of it seems to be focus delay.
Are you aware of any experiments that has been done regarding the way we can perceive detail on moving objects? Wikipedia was not very helpful.
Also, if moving to 30 fps means that we will be losing a lot of detail, I do not see the point of adding more features...
You have a pretty perfect experiment yourself when driving - how much isn't blurred? Look out the window of a train or bus, and clearly there's motion blur, unless you fix your eye on a subject and track it. That blur, whatever the mechanics of its generation, exists from the object moving quickly. With a high display framerate you'd get exactly that response naturally. Render a view of looking out a train window and it'll all be blurred at 200 fps unless you track an object. A low framerate can't reproduce that because the time slices are too large, so that blur has to be emulated. This blur is unnatural in that it can't be overcome by tracking an object, but in a racer where you're looking straight ahead, that's not a major issue. It's more realistic to add the blur than not.
And if you're trying to recreate film rather than human vision, even better. Film has motion blur caused by an accumulation of light samples over time, plain and simple. If the game wants to recreate the style of a camera capturing constant movement over 1/30th second slices with suitably long exposures, it needs to incorporate moblur.
Look out the window of a train or bus, and clearly there's motion blur, unless you fix your eye on a subject and track it. That blur, whatever the mechanics of its generation, exists from the object moving quickly. With a high display framerate you'd get exactly that response naturally. Render a view of looking out a train window and it'll all be blurred at 200 fps unless you track an object. A low framerate can't reproduce that because the time slices are too large, so that blur has to be emulated. This blur is unnatural in that it can't be overcome by tracking an object, but in a racer where you're looking straight ahead, that's not a major issue. It's more realistic to add the blur than not.And if you're trying to recreate film rather than human vision, even better. Film has motion blur caused by an accumulation of light samples over time, plain and simple. If the game wants to recreate the style of a camera capturing constant movement over 1/30th second slices with suitably long exposures, it needs to incorporate moblur.
Have you tried Forza Horizon? It looks really clean, it is not "blurried".
You have a pretty perfect experiment yourself when driving - how much isn't blurred?
I do not think that is the case. We humans have really bad "eye resolution" on the points we do not have focus on. However, our brain fills in the blanks when you have static scenery. So this "motion blur" is just our normal eye resolution when our brains can't do its own image enhancement.
It exceeds it , easily . But it's expected , GT5 is a 2010 game .
Try shaking your hand in front of your eyes.
To test how fast my eyes can focus on something when moving horizontally?
Only if looking with peripheral vision. Have you never looked at moving objects or scenery?
Never gazed out a car window and watched fences appear as moving lines because the posts blur out of view but the beams blur over the top of each other to a continuous line? Never watched bushes blur past? When I used to commute on the train, sometimes I'd often gaze out the window as it blurred past and then grab focus on a piece of scenery and track it, freezing the blur and revealing the detail. The moment that object was passed, the scene was all blurred again.Or how's about a colour spinner that appears white when spun because all the colours blur together?
If you're relating the blur to your own driving experience, then you won't notice the blur on what you are looking at because your eye is tracking it. That's something a post-FX blur will get wrong, because it blurs everything including what you are looking at. As the choice is either smoothness or juddering clarity, both are equally floored representations of RL and one's as good as the other. Given the prevalence of TV experience, incorporating moblur like a camera does for a game displayed on the TV is probably going to resonate with most consumers as a realistic.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
I was looking for specifics. Is it FP10/16? Nao32?
I'm noticing the similarities and non-similarities in the technical specs between Forza Horizon and GT5:
720p/4xMSAA+TAA vs 720p/4xMSAA+FXAA
HDR + Day/Night cycles + weather vs HDR + Day/Night cycles
Non-open world vs Open world
60Hz vs 30Hz
Fully dynamic ray-traced headlights vs not quite fully dynamic headlights
no in-game OMB vs in-game OMB
Split-screen vs no split-screen
16 players online vs 8 players online
This is about all we know, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
