GT4 VS REALITY

[chaphack]

And why do you pathetically keep asking for my banning? ..shakes head.. :?

Again, that was nothing flaming. Just to highlight different people take a different look at how graphics should be coolth. You with your BM quoting, me with mine. Its just opinions, learn to accept others', if you want others to accept yours.

 

[randycat99]

Cant say the same for a game that throws many poorly textured and useless polygons around(hints -> starts with R). 8)

You honestly are going to backpeddle and claim that your above quote was worded so as to be genuinely informative in some way, rather than just to piss somebody off and lead to a digression in the discussion about whether some game that starts with "R" really does have poor textures and useless polys???!? Can't say it pisses me off, because I have no idea what game you are inferring in the first place. I only bring up the ban word because you have been begging for one like a cat on its 15th life.

This will be the last I address you on this in this topic. I won't be an accomplice to your OT antics. I've said my peace. Hopefully, the mods will make good on their words.

 

[chaphack]

It is good when applied in situations where it actually can be appreciated.

AGAIN, I can appreciate a BM road over a non BM road. Cant say the same for a game that throws many poorly textured and useless polygons around(hints -> starts with R). 8)

As you can see, different people different strokes....have you gain your enlightenment?

That was the full post my friend. Nothing backpeddling, just an extension of where topic was at that moment. Easily understandable for anyone with basic English.

Feel free to invite Dave to read through this topic. 8) If i was being really anal, i could have refered to a few gloating statements on page 2 and not so friendly comments on page 3.

I said my fill too. Please read and decide Dave.

 

[notAFanB]

And you are beating the trite "no yeay! to BM" arguement.

BM + Highres texture > Highres texture

Can we agree on that?

no we (you and me) cannot. in this application BM is exccesive overuse of resources. for it application in this domain(driveing at a fixed distance over the surface+non-moving lights (point or directional)). an very hires tecture+prebake lightmap+specular(depending on lighting 'mood') renders the result perfectly.

GFX effects are not all cumalative some do not apply to all scenarios. in an FPS you 'might' want to BM the road surface (more dynamic scenario) where the player may notice otherwise it becomes a mattter of BM for the sake of BM.

EDIT: and no my post does not equate to "no yeay! to BM".

 

[chaphack]

Well, like i said, if well done specular highlighting achieve the same results as BM, i am fine. But looking at the picture, the road does look "flat" compared to the real life photo, ya?

And you see, even with driving games, you dont go 199 mph every hour. You have to slow down to take a corner or come to a stop when you hit the kerb or certain cars arent fastest of fast or you can just go slow to appreciate the graphics. Thus i still say BM for a driving game helps.

 

[cybamerc]

Um... there is no bump mapping in MotoGP 2. And PGR2 completely lacks specular highlights on the road... how will anyone ever play it?!

 

[_phil_]

the bump argument is starting to become .If no ps2 game ever feature Bump( that will probably be the case anyway) it'll be ok fine for me.The bump thing has allmost never looked tasty enough in any but a small handfull of games.there are so many more important things that makes a great game.
So don't expect me to workship that little god anyday.

 

[Grall]

It's pretty clear that Chap is only seeing the benefits of BM in a racing game because he saw a bumpmapping checkbox in a specs list and instantly his graphics-whore of a brain went, "oMg i7 h45 t3h bUmpm4pp1ng! xb0zz si t3h K1111NG!"

Wether or not the effect can be replicated using some other technique or wether it can even be distinguished in-game from pre-baked bumps (depending on presence of dynamic lights or not) is irrelevant to him (as witnessed from his own replies). There is only room for checkboxes in his limited mind, and knowing t3h XbOxOr si t3h Ub4r ch3xxb0x with the longest feature-list of current hardware, that's all he needs to go off on another ranting-spree. Any foundation in reality isn't required, presence of checkbox features is evidence enough of superiority.

Now, have we depleted the topic on the merits of bumpmapping in racing games yet or not?


*G*

 

[chaphack]

Um... there is no bump mapping in MotoGP 2

http://www.3dgamers.com/dl/games/motogp2/moto_gp2_demo.exe.html

Wether or not the effect can be replicated using some other technique or wether it can even be distinguished in-game from pre-baked bumps (depending on presence of dynamic lights or not) is irrelevant to him (as witnessed from his own replies).

"Will a well done specular lightmap do? If it is as good it is fine to me."

"Well, like i said, if well done specular highlighting achieve the same results as BM, i am fine. "

 

[notAFanB]

chap one thing:

Well, like i said, if well done specular highlighting achieve the same results as BM, i am fine. But looking at the picture, the road does look "flat" compared to the real life photo, ya?

I am glad we can agree on this. the one thing I want to mention is that BM won't help in this case if the prebaked lightmap is off anyway. GCI is a little off on reality too u know 8)

again a high res texture might actually be more useful here (less DOT3 instructions are eaten up compared to HR texture, tho you are trading space for processing cycles).


EDIT: actually DOT3 BM tends to exhibit some issues at extreme angles which might be probalmatic again this is up the design team.

 

[Almasy]

I only have to say one thing: when I popped GT3 into my PS2, and entered my first race, I really marveled at how great the road looked. It appeared with the correct "shinyness" on the pavement, and definitely looked very good, really approaching the effect seen on real life under similar conditions.

GT4 seems to improve on this, and this is supposed to be great, but am I supposed to think now that the roads look flat now just because chap says they´re? It´s a silly arguement (not as silly as the "DC looks tons better tahn anything becuase I can connect it to my monitor" arguement though), applying BM just for the sake of bump-mapping, when the results of it can´t be appreciatted anyway and in fact are detrimental due to wasted resources.

And no chap, you´re not special, neither can you appreciatte BM if your objective is to play the damn game. The only way to do that would be to travel at 3 kmph while looking at the pretty pavement, and in that case you´d be better off buying an "uber powerfull" PC card and downloading graphics demos.

 

[DeathKnight]

Downloaded the MotoGP 2 demo just for the hell of it. Man, it pales in comparison to the Xbox demo :?

 

[randycat99]

And no chap, you´re not special, neither can you appreciatte BM if your objective is to play the damn game. The only way to do that would be to travel at 3 kmph while looking at the pretty pavement, and in that case you´d be better off buying an "uber powerfull" PC card and downloading graphics demos.

You hit my sentiments on the bullseye!

 

[chaphack]

Can you link me to some impressive graphics demos? Nvidias are limited boring. Yes, i am serious.


One little thing i forgot,

And PGR2 completely lacks specular highlights on the road... how will anyone ever play it?!

Since when i did i say BM makes a game play better...?

 

[London Geezer]

... and I was the one "attacking chap and making him even worse".........

 

[Dave Glue]

Downloaded the MotoGP 2 demo just for the hell of it. Man, it pales in comparison to the Xbox demo :?

?? Are you speaking in terms of demo features, or appearance? It's identical to the Xbox - on my PC (1800XP, 64 meg 4200) it runs at a constant 60fps with everything maxxed in the demo at 1024 res, including motion blur.

 

[archie4oz]

One little thing i forgot,
Quote:
And PGR2 completely lacks specular highlights on the road... how will anyone ever play it?!

Since when i did i say BM makes a game play better...?

I'm curious to how you deducted bump mapping from specular highlights...

 

[Ug Lee]

As for 480p, how big a percentage of people have HDTVs again?


*G*

Enough to warrant the vast majority of Xbox games supporting 480p, I would say.

 

[MfA]

If the hardware doesnt make it hard for a developer to design a game with frame resolution rendering it will be his preferred option, it looks better and makes life easier. That is why nearly everyone supports 480p.

 

[DeathKnight]

Downloaded the MotoGP 2 demo just for the hell of it. Man, it pales in comparison to the Xbox demo :?

?? Are you speaking in terms of demo features, or appearance? It's identical to the Xbox - on my PC (1800XP, 64 meg 4200) it runs at a constant 60fps with everything maxxed in the demo at 1024 res, including motion blur.

Mostly demo features. The PC demo also lacks the graphical polish of the Xbox demo to a degree. It's just really gritty... and yes, I have everything maxxed as well.