GT4 VS REALITY
- Thread starter McFly
- Start date
randycat99
Veteran
DeathKnight
Regular
It's fairly impressive overall, but not up there with a few other racers visually (and yes, these other racers tend to do a better job with visual realism than GT4).
Enough people own them. The benefits of a progressive scan signal are rather high (especially when the game itself is rendered progressively). Ever see the difference between a game being displayed through an analog television with an interlaced signal (even through component connections) and the same game being displayed through a digital television with a progressive signal (has to be through component connections)? I have. That's why I own an HDTV now. The difference is really night and day.
MonkeyLicker
Newcomer
DeathKnight said:
This man is 100% correct.
Progressive-scan makes an absolutely huge difference on the more graphically impressive games.
not surte what yu mean by deader. but the lighting there is differrent since they havent positioned the fopcual light in the same place as the photgrapgh.
as a light map it works fine pixxel lighting will give you little gain in this cirumstance (since the main light doesn't move at all).
what you might be caomplaining about is that the texture res is still a little low (a dead givaway).
randycat99
Veteran
Yeah, in motion you'll really be able to pick out the bumpmapping of the road surface. Sure.
chaphack said:
I have and yes BM on roads would be especially nice for night time tracks were the headlights would act as the moving light source.
however my point was in that shot were the main light is static a lightmap will suffice and any additional lights have their beneifits minimised somewhat. This is actually true even in GCI somewhat for non local light source I beleive.
I stand by my assertion that the slight blur in the texture is the givaway here
randycat99 said:
Yeah, in motion you'll really be able to pick out the bumpmapping of the road surface. Sure.
Of course i can.
I hope it is legal to say this....Run MotoGP2 on your Xbox or download the PC demo and play around with the pixel shaders.
Still the point being, comparing the 2 photos, BM helps.
randycat99
Veteran
A specular texture would give all the effect desired for this high-motion scenario. Trying to pick out tiny bumps on the road in daylight while at speed will be near impossible, let alone trying to do it under the poor lighting of night driving. You may think you are "seeing the actual bumps", but all you can see at typical road speeds is a specularity effect. If you can see bumps actually representing pebble grain in the road, then it is likely the result of a waaay over-emphasized detail. To this, you should be questioning if what you are being presented is more an "ooh, look at those bumps" show or a depiction with realism as the goal.
randycat99
Veteran
...anything to conjure a contrived situation... Normal people don't play driving games to stop and look at the pavement slowly going by. Let's just say you have "special" needs (Tumma-Timmeh!) unlike other normal people, and let it go as that. Even if you do suck so bad that you have to go slow, you still won't be able to watch the road pebble-for-pebble because you'll be straining to concentrate keeping the car on the road, just by virtue of you sucking so bad at eye-hand coordination and vehicle dynamics. So your premise is utterly flawed, no matter how you approach it.
Normal people don't play driving games to stop and look at the pavement slowly going by. Let's just say you have "special" needs (Tumma-Timmeh!) unlike other normal people, and let it go as that. Even if you do suck so bad that you have to go slow, you still won't be able to watch the road pebble-for-pebble because you'll be straining to concentrate keeping the car on the road, just by virtue of you sucking so bad at eye-hand coordination and vehicle dynamics. So your premise is utterly flawed, no matter how you approach it.randycat99
Veteran
You still don't get it. Of course, you see a difference between flat textures mode and bumpmapping mode in your prized little Moto game. What you don't realize is if bumpmapping is soley responsible for the difference you are seeing, or can the same effect be achieved by a "less sophisticated" method (say like via specular map). Of course, you'll swear up and down that its the bumps that you are seeing (and only bumpmapping could achieve that), but what you'll never come to realize is that perhaps it is the specular variation of the bumps that is giving you the net effect you are seeing. If you happen to be staring at a static, giant boulder or a quaint little screen grab (cuz we all know how much fun it is to play a driving game frame-by-frame at .5 fps), by all means, brag all you want of the wonders of bumpmapping. However, when it comes to a speeding roadway, your little theory simply does not wash. Sorry.
Gosh! Why must some people get SO upsetty over little things. :?
Where was i bragging over BM? I am just saying, BM helps. Will a well done specular lightmap do? If it is as good it is fine to me. But from the photos, it is obivious that a "rough gravel" feel is missing from the in game screen....and obiviously BM helps.
And by someone logic, just because we wont be seeing certain effects because of how the (different) ways we play a game, than there are dozens of extra eye candy that many games can do without. :?
EDIT:
And you are beating the trite "no yeay! to BM" arguement.
BM + Highres texture > Highres texture
Can we agree on that?
Where was i bragging over BM? I am just saying, BM helps. Will a well done specular lightmap do? If it is as good it is fine to me. But from the photos, it is obivious that a "rough gravel" feel is missing from the in game screen....and obiviously BM helps.
And by someone logic, just because we wont be seeing certain effects because of how the (different) ways we play a game, than there are dozens of extra eye candy that many games can do without. :?
EDIT:
And you are beating the trite "no yeay! to BM" arguement.
BM + Highres texture > Highres texture
Can we agree on that?
randycat99
Veteran
chaphack said:
OMFG, ole Chap actually stretched a bit and reached a moment of enlightenment.
To reiterate, bumpmapping isn't good just for the sake of bumpmapping (nor is it healthly to endlessly, indiscriminantly contrive situations in order to justify it). It is good when applied in situations where it actually can be appreciated. Speeding roadways would rate pretty low on the scale as for useful instances of bumpmapping, unless it is a VERY coarse, rickety road, a traditionally bumpy dirt road, or an ice/snow entrenched road. Even then, it still matters greatly how fast you will be going over it.Lastly, if you had any clue whatsoever about what you were talking about in picture 1, you would be more rightly complaining about the use of a higher-res texture (procedural or pre-baked, as the case may be) in the foremost part of the road to achieve the "grittiness" you seem to think is so important, rather than beating the trite bumpmapping argument. Nevertheless, the net effect is still dubious when you consider what it will really look like in motion rather than staring at a static screenshot. Bonus hint: If you really are driving that car hard like you should, you will be focused on the road up ahead, not staring "down" at the road immediately surrounding your car (...course that could also be an explanation for your poor aptitude on these driving games- look ahead to ascertain where to guide your car.
)randycat99
Veteran
OK, that last post should be sufficient for your ban. Thanks! Hope the mods follow through for all of our sake...
Referencing wrt unnecessary flames that potentially lead to OT dispositions:
Referencing wrt unnecessary flames that potentially lead to OT dispositions:
chaphack said:
Similar threads
