Gran Turismo Sport [PS4]

There are times when it just comes off stylized/gamey at times. Clearly Forza 5,6,7 are the worst offenders here, but some people are being too defensive. DC has great lighting, GI, SSR, but it's overall presentation is lacking when compared to other racers. Nothing wrong with that, it's what they focused on. No game to date is flawless.

 

I fucking loved Drive Club. I haven't played a driving game as much as Drive Club in 5+ years.

Color and lighting sometimes look over saturated and have a game look. It's not perfect. So what?

 

http://cronusmax.com/new-product-drive-hub-pre-order-now/
CronusMax Drivehub, a new racing wheel adapter for PS4/XBoxOne just before Gran Turismo release. User reviews are not available yet so remains to be seen compatibility, stability and quality details.

 

I'll concede that GTS can look more realistic in some scenes than DC probably due to using photoscanned textures and captured IBL probes plus a better HDR model. Still technologically I think it's a dissapointment. HDR-wise GT6 was already there except for doing things in gamma space instead of linear, plus lower res buffers for the post-processing. On the other hand a major regression in GTS is the complete lack of dynamic shadows from environmental lights other than the sun. In GT5 and 6 cars casted shadows from all lamp posts and tunnel lights. In GTS there's nothing which results in very flat interior lighting:

 

To each their own. 60fps imo is already a visual improvement, although it doesn't show in the shaders, it shows in clarity. A big part of why people are amazed by the graphics of 30fps (ontop of having more render time), is that the brain is doing a lot of work on interpreting the image. That motion blur really makes details hard to see, and your brain is left to just say if things look 'correct'. And DC had some pretty close to correct lighting, too dark for my tastes, most of the overcast levels should have had day time running lights at the very least, I felt the game feels like it's driving in the dark to create the hyperrealism of it's lighting of the game.

But when you play a high FPS game, the image is exceptionally sharper, and as a result, you see a lot more flaws and it becomes much easier to criticize the game.
But heres the crazy thing, have you ever jumped from a 144fps games (plus monitor refresh) and dropped all the way to 30fps? Your brain has such a hard time recalibrating, I thought I was watching a slide show for 3 minutes until my brain readjusted.

Things look actually _darker_ because of low refresh. I found this out the hard way, when I started playing sc2 on my 144 gsync monitor, but the refresh was capped to 30. scrolling around the map, everything looked like it was flashing. Obvsiuoly this doesn't happen on TV, there is a built in refresh to refresh content regardless of input, but once I pushed to 144 refresh, everything was like looking at a screen shot. You don't miss any detail, and all the colours come through, ghosting goes away. And I think, if I were to be critical, and why I like GTS, is because that move to 60fps, yea, it's more flawed, but it hella sharper, and much more enjoyable to drive and watch. Its less exhausting overall (I hate the constant overcast/night time shit), I like to race in daytime, it looks great to me.

GTS doesn't come across as sharp in terms of image quality as F7. But it has some really nice lighting as their trade off, something I hope F7 will get to one day.

 

Are you mad? Why would you ever do that to yourself?? that's like having a bowl of Brussels sprouts just after a nice pizza.

 

OK has anyone ever wondered why high fps game sometimes feels "unnatural" compared to a 30 fps game? I totally get the smooth, ultra responsive experience of a 60 fps game and how that would come close to the human eye perception of the motion in reality. But moving this fast in game paradoxically contradicts to how human should actually move in reality. Now despite the fact our eyes can keep up with high frame rate (over 140 fps?) on a display, we would have extreme difficulty to perform the same in reality without getting very disoriented or nausea very fast. You can move the cursor with lightening speed for hours but it's almost impossible in to do in reality factoring physics of course. So what I'm saying here is a slower 30 fps game would mimic the reality much closer regarding the speed of the movement thus giving you a more grounded and natural feel overall. Playing with a controller would perhaps somehow mitigate that ultra fast feel due to the thumb stick design (still unnatural) but with a mouse the immersion is kinda broken.
I don't know, maybe I'm just weird .

 

eh =P haha. I guess that's what happens when you go from Overwatch on PC to Destiny on XBO

 

Reality runs at 'infinite' framerate. There's zero problem with acclimatising to framerate. Any problem with control would just come from the underlying gameplay physics, and these racers all run at like >120fps in the physics department anyway. A 150 mph car will be moving at the same speed in game at 30 fps, 60 fps and 144 fps. Higher screen refreshes just makes the thing more realistic, and easier to see faults with the game, I guess, which is possibly what you're referring to.

 

I guess it's easier to acclimatize to a racer since there isn't much knee jerk 180 degree movements every few seconds like in a shooter. Question is how can a soldier in reality carrying 20 kg of equipment has to move as fast as how you move your mouse on the screen? Maybe for a few minutes before the dude exhausts himself completely by gravity, friction and fatigue. So for majority of the time he would move nowhere near as fast or turn as fast as one would move a cursor, consequently unable to replicate that flashing feel of 120 fps at all time rather like the feel of a blu ray movie. So basically 30 fps would be enough to replicate the feel of reality at least most of the time in a shooter provided if it's aiming for realism. But yeah I guess for a sim racer higher fps wouldn't hurt.

 

Even at 30fps in a shooter you'll still encounter the unrealistic quick jerky movements of aiming with a mouse, but without the fluidity and responsiveness of higher framerates. It isn't more realistic at 30fps.

 

The frame rate thing, everything still moves at the same speed (game wise), but you get less information with less frame rate. This is a bigger issue with shooters than racing games, since in racing games you're going forward and there aren't many if any knee jerk direction changes, you will know where your car is going, and your brain does a good job compensating for that.

But in a game that is rapid and fast paced, the more frames you see the less things look like they are warping around, and you can see things move as if they aren't warping. So if you are playing at 144fps with a monitor refresh of 144Hz, you will see ~5x more frames than playing at 30fps. That makes transitions in movement more nuanced and more detailed. You have 5x more inputs, 5x more frames to react against, 5x more information to track motion.

The delta between frames decrease as frame rates increases. This decrease in delta is exactly what improves image clarity imo. Things aren't changing so rapidly, so the image is clearer.

30fps v 60fps. Now imagine 30v144 fps
https://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

 

uhm. I'm having a hard time to understand that statement. If GTS was a 30fps locked game they could for example Bump up that resolution or use any other other method to make the actual image look sharper. 60 fps wouldn't hold up in a side by side comparison of still images.

the sacrifice in games like Hellblade is the sharpness to make it run with a higher framerate on Pro. Looks a lot blurrier than the other mode.

 

Is a higher framerate beneficial to temporal techniques such as TAA and Insomniac's alternative to checkerboarding?

To my mind, more frames = more information = better results. Is there a limit though to how beneficial more information can be? Is there no benefit at all?

Could such a technique even be used for increasing framerate? So full resolution frame 1, quarter resolution frame 2, but reconstructed to a higher resolution using information from frame 1, full resolution frame 3, and so on?

 

use the ufo demo I posted in the link. You tell me which UFO looks more blurry, can you resolve more detail on the 30fps UFO or the 60FPS UFO? When the motion is slow/static, then resolution will matter more. When motion is extremely fast, it will favour refresh.

Resolution cannot resolve the blurriness of motion (within acceptable bounds)

 

As I understand it, temporal reconstruction (of any form, as well as CBR) is more effective at higher frame rates because there is less change between frames, the algorithms will be more accurate during reconstruction.

When you are receiving more frames than what a brain is able to actually process, is probably the point of diminishing returns I imagine.

 

Hmm it does seem to luck the dynamic shadows from 5 and 6. How peculiar.

 

well, might be a timing thing. They just need more time to make it happen. Perhaps the next GT.

 

For me, at 30fps I don't even perceive it as motion but as a series of sequential still images. At 60fps my brain does perceive it as motion and as you say it's much easier to perceive all the "flaws". Not a problem with cartoony games like Nintendo's though. My brain just accepts them no problem.

On the other hand the problems I've been talking about are all easily perceivable during replays, which run at 30fps, so the framerate is not really a major factor here.

 

i'm ok with 30fps as long as they have a good motion blur solution, i can play a 60fps game and play driveclub right after without a problem, but going from uncapped framerate to locked 30fps in no man's sky is pretty harsh.