Forza: A Test Case for next gen hardware discussion

[Scott_Arm]

Of course, but you wouldn't want that for the actual game, too? Weird.

It depends. What am I sacrificing for 1080p? Assuming limitless processing power, then sure, I'd like 1080p. But I'd also want 120Hz and Supersampling galore.

 

[Gubbi]

In my opinion a racing game lacks a lot of the complexity that would really stress a console's hardware; a game with lots of characters and especially with an open world will almost always require more in almost every aspect.

Skin shaders, hair, dynamics simulations, more complex AI and pathfinding, skeletial animation system for the body with advanced animation blending, facial animation system, and so on. A racing game is 'just' a bunch of hard surface constructs going in circles, although the vehicle physics are naturally complex too, especially if you introduce collisions and deformations; so there's less to manage and optimize to work together well.
.

You don't skin meshes or have a lot of animation in racing games, but every other aspect of a racing sim is as taxing as any game in any genre.

Car paint shaders can be rather complex. You have great draw distances. Environment reflection mapping buffers need frequent updates because of the high velocities involved (typically 30Hz). The physics is quite involved, simulating suspension and deformation of tyres at very high frequencies (much higher than the 60Hz draw frequency) and the AI needs to act as a credible "human" driver.

All with a 60Hz temporal resolution that cannot be compromised.

Cheers

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I still disagree about that.

The number of dynamic objects to evaluate is low, the scenery is 'empty' compared to an RPG, a shooter or a GTA. Some of the subsystems are complex indeed, but there's nowhere near as much to do and finetune as in other games.

60hz may also require more optimization to fit into 16 ms, it's about a limited number of entities going around and nothing like simulating an open world or managing and displaying dozens of characters. IMHO.

 

[Billy Idol]

And I want a pony. The problem with blindingly wanting 1080p60 is that there will be many games that instead go for 720p60 and look far better because most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, especially if you're dealing with a lot of fast action (at some point, the quality of the TV makes a huge difference).

If anything, what I really want is the UI to be 1080p and target resolution for 3D to be "above 720p" like the OP stated. Static elements are far more noticeable at a higher resolution than moving objects in a sceen. Throw in some MSAA and you'd probably won't be able to tell unless you're looking at screen caps. More realistic details, effects, higher resolution textures would have a better payoff in the end.

Where is all the bullshit coming from that 'people' cannot tell the difference of 720p and 1080p? Which people? Where is your reference, your scientific investigation?

Basically everyone can tell the difference of 720p and 1080p on a proper display within a reasonable distance from screen. I guess that especially console only gamer will appreciate the difference and will be shocked in the beginning about how much difference 1080p makes. I was shocked when I hooked up my PC on my panny plasma when I first tested different resolutions...just out of curiosity. Once you see 1080p game on a 1080p display, you do not want to go back...trust me.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If you're sitting 10' from a 50" or less screen, you'd have a hard time picking out a 720p movie vs 1080p one. I'd argue gaming is a bit easier unless there is a lot of AA. I know I'd prefer 720p movie quality over anything we're going to see in the next gen.

The question you should really be asking is how much people care about the difference, not if they can tell if there is one. I know I'd prefer 720p with good AA than 1080 without.

 

[dagamer]

I'd argue that it's hard to tell 720p from 1080p on your average HDTV (40 inches) in any game with a lot of motion (like racing) because the image is rarely static enough for you to process jagged edges of rendered models. And because of needed increase of power to go from rendering the same scene in 1080p instead of 720p, sometimes it's better spent elsewhere.

The jump from 720p to 1080p is certainly less obvious than going from 480p to 1080p because we also doubled the average screen size in the process.

 

[Billy Idol]

I'd argue that it's hard to tell 720p from 1080p on your average HDTV (40 inches) in any game with a lot of motion (like racing) because the image is rarely static enough for you to process jagged edges of rendered models. And because of needed increase of power to go from rendering the same scene in 1080p instead of 720p, sometimes it's better spent elsewhere.

The jump from 720p to 1080p is certainly less obvious than going from 480p to 1080p because we also doubled the average screen size in the process.

Maybe you have a chance to try it out somewhere. I bet you can easily spot the difference, as long as you do not sit to far away. I also bet, that you do not want 720p anymore after this. I am talking about a 1080p hdtv of course. On consoles it is difficult to judge and test. Maybe you have e.g. SACRED 2, which is 1080p iirc. On PS, you can try out 720p or switch to 1080p to check...

 

[Arwin]

I thought it was pretty easy to spot the difference between 1280x1080 and 1280x720 in GT5, personally. Don't forget that when you are in racing traffic in a good race, you can be right behind other cars. And a good track has a lot of slow bends as well, for which you need to first brake, you can be in the pits, you can be on the starting grid before the race starts, the long draw distance combined with a racing straight can have a lot of detail in the center of your screen that barely moves, etc., lots of examples where geometry isn't moving much.

 

[tuna]

The question you should really be asking is how much people care about the difference, not if they can tell if there is one. I know I'd prefer 720p with good AA than 1080 without.

Do you usually test this on PC games?

 

[tuna]

I'd argue that it's hard to tell 720p from 1080p on your average HDTV (40 inches) in any game with a lot of motion (like racing) because the image is rarely static enough for you to process jagged edges of rendered models. And because of needed increase of power to go from rendering the same scene in 1080p instead of 720p, sometimes it's better spent elsewhere.

Have you actually tested this? Also, it is kind of pointless mentioning display sizes without considering the viewing distance.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Do you usually test this on PC games?

No cuz my pc display is 2560x1600 and can run any game with 4xAA anyway.

 

[MystWalker]

Day/Night Cycle. FM4 has time of day presets that cannot be changed. FM5 needs day and night options for all courses and ideally dynamic time of day adjustments to race any time of day the user wishes. A plus would be for it to change in realtime and an accelerated clock.

Shadowing & Indirect Occlusion. In FM4 some direct shadows have jagged edges. Indirect light occlusion is fairly weak as can be seen in overcast settings. FM5 is going to require dynamic shadows and a robust ambient occlusion system (not all methods are as robust or have the same quality) to not just correct FM4’s issues but also to prove convincing Day/Night and Weather.

Lighting. FM4 improved its lighting but the issue is there is a lot of work left both artistically and balance (see: GT5). These issues will be compounded by the need for a more robust pipeline would help that can offer convincing dynamic lighting. Paint needs to bring the car even more into the environment while the engine will need to improve indirect lighting (GI hacks) while at the same time offering robust point light (head lights) solutions. Atmospherics (lightening, flickering street lights, sparks) all need to be addressed. Little things like the glowing brake disks and tail lights need an overhaul. Lighting, both on the cars (paint), as well as point lights and world lighting will be the areas of biggest impact (along with post processing and particles) in making the world look better. It is a tall order to ask FM5 to move up in resolution, increase lighting IQ, but also asking it to become dynamic.

I fail to see the need for a true dynamic day/night cycle in a circuit simulation-type racer like FM. Like you brought out, it would have to be highly accelerated for it to be even noticeable in most races, and that would ruin the simulation aspect. It would also probably hurt the lighting quality of the environment, because I doubt that even next-gen realtime, quality GI would be possible in a 60 FPS game. Personally, what I hope for is being able to select what hour of the day to race from the menu or have them pre-selected for certain events. Then, during the loading screen calculate GI for the track at that ToD using something like Enlighten. This saves them having to store 24 sets of lightmaps for every track on the disc, while still maintaining the lighting quality. An irradiance volume for lighting the cars wouldn't even be necessary, as they are lit via IBL which is taken from real-time updated cubemaps. (At least I assumed this is where they are getting the light information for IBL from) I hope they can also add real-time CSMs with translucency and maybe variable penumbra. For nighttime, dynamic track-side lights and headlights would be nice too.

Particles. The dust and smoke in FM4 fall far behind the competition. The NFS and DiRT games years ago introduced thick clouds of “burning rubber” that dynamically swirled around your car. Is it too much to ask for a car traveling 125MPH hitting a dirt shoulder to toss up a thick cloud of dust that dissipates naturally? This is the single weakest part of FM4. FM4 needs to address smoke, dust, and gravel and also have falling leaves, sparks, and an assortment of subtle effects in the air. Semi-related would be heat wave distortions on hot tracks and exhaust systems. And of course there is the aforementioned weather elemental affects.

Dust and smoke effects actually increased from FM3 to FM4. In FM4 doing donuts in the sand is the only way I've been able to get the framerate to noticeably drop, so I think the sparsity of these effects is performance related.

 

[tuna]

No cuz my pc display is 2560x1600 and can run any game with 4xAA anyway.

If you do not test, how do you know what you prefer (1080p/no AA vs 720p/ good AA)?