New PGR3 pic *WOW*

[jvd]

pegisys,

I am not sure I am getting your point. Do you mind rephrasing (that is a PGR2 shot). Are you saying "PGR2 had good textures, so this is believable"? Kind of confused.

I think he is saying that xbox 1 games looked that good so a machine launched almost 5 years later should be able to display these picture s.

Honestly its just a backround . I don't see what the huge deal is

 

[Inane_Dork]

I will make answers as best I can. No promises.

1. If it is an ingame shot, why is it not 720p?

I believe the shots is from the "internal dev diary" or something like that. They crop pictures to put in there, I suppose. Just like the wheel and road sample pictures, I guess.

I have a hard time believing we will see entire streets that detailed to that level. The game mantra is, "Life starts at 170". The game is fast. That means you need to stream a TON of textures to maintain this diversity/detail.

Certainly reasonable. I have similar doubts but not to the same degree as yours. I have no answer other than that Bizarre maybe streams the specific stuff dynamically. That's a total guess, though. 350 MB of textures is quite a few if you reuse them effectively.

3. How smooth will it be in actual gameplay? I am a trained lemming: The better it looks the crappier it runs hehehehe

Who knows? Bizarre has not specified a framerate yet. That usually means 30 fps, of course.

4. Uhhh WHY oh WHY did we not see more of this at E3? This only highlights, yet again, that MS is on crack. Fire the entire PR department. If this is real, and the PGR team has thrown down the gauntlet and put there money where their mouth is and has said it is, a 3rd grader could have marketed this stuff better.

Agreed, but this doesn't reflect poorly on PGR3.

5. This looks a lot better than the stuff shown in the PGR city street trailer. ... And anything amazing, not running on final HW, makes me suspecious!

Basically the same as #2.

I look forward to being proven wrong

Me too.

 

[jvd]

Until I see where I this has done before and is old hat I stand by that. This is clearly far beyond what we have seen in Full Auto and NFS and even Test Drive's best screenshots pale in comparison from a "realistic" standpoint.

Some points

1) Full auto is not the game to compare this to. Everything in full auto is destructable . You can blow up anything you see in that game .


2) For both of said games those are much older than this shot . This shot was released today. So it can be from a build today or yesterday . The test drive and full auto shots are from builds prior to e3 as full auto was playable on the floor

3) what are the budgets for each of the games ? For all we know pgr3 can have a budget equal to both full auto and test drive .

 

[Shark Sandwich]

2. If the image looks really good..... claim its not real, do anything you can to explain why. Use bad math if necessary. Whatever it takes.

More like, if the image looks really good, find something to nitpick about it anyway.

On Fark.com, the joke is "her knees are too pointy." Whenever someone posts a boobies link, people complain about every tiny flaw they can find. Most of these losers on Fark would probably do ANYTHING to even be in the same room with girls this beautiful. But they always post stupid comments like "she's not that great. . . her knees are too pointy."

This thread is the exact equivalent of a Fark boobies thread. Instead of "her knees are too pointy", it's "all they did is use really hi-resolution texture maps on low-polygon environments, who cares if it's photorealistic".

 

[Acert93]

Some points

1) Full auto is not the game to compare this to. Everything in full auto is destructable . You can blow up anything you see in that game .

To a degree yes, I agree. The point of the photos was to demonstrate "photorealism" by taking pictures of real world assets is not as common--or as high quality--as presented.

Full Auto looks great in motion btw. Looks like a lot of fun.

3) what are the budgets for each of the games ? For all we know pgr3 can have a budget equal to both full auto and test drive .

Great point JVD.

Actually, I would take that bet PGR3 probably has 2x the crew and budget plus has probably had more access to hardware and estimated projections.

And your 3rd point is a good one because I think it emphasizes what has been said for over a year: Artist skill, art direction, and resources (time, money) will be the biggest factors this gen. Having a good technical engine is not enough. Art mated correctly with technology that works best with your game style will get the best results.

Obviously PGR is an important MS franchise, a 1st party title, so I think your point is spot on.

 

[jvd]

To a degree yes, I agree. The point of the photos was to demonstrate "photorealism" by taking pictures of real world assets is not as common--or as high quality--as presented.

Full Auto looks great in motion btw. Looks like a lot of fun.

But its not really comparing like things in regard to full auto. In pgr3 that building is always like that .It never changes and its never interacted with .

In full auto , I can blow it up into 18 lvls and drive through the lvls jumping off a ramp like structure that formed as the result of me destroying that ubilding and fly onto the roof top of another building .

There are diffrences.

Great point JVD.

Thank you

 

[wireframe]

Where exactly (link, please) is the starting claim that this is a capture from the game itself? I was just browsing by and my jaw dropped when I saw the original picture. I am still thinking that this cannot possibly be real. Well, actually I am thinking that it is exactly real, as in a photo of a real place. It just doesn't make sense when comparing to other graphics we have been seeing. This doesn't just look good, it looks exactly real.

So, if you would be so kind, could you post the exact link to where the original claim is made that this is real. (All I see is something about this coming from a PGR3 game developer's diary, which is something totally different from saying it comes out of the game itself).

 

[_phil_]

I am still thinking that this cannot possibly be real.

I can't see why people can't believe it's really in engine.I can make that shot in maya. .It's just texture-maped photographs with per vertex AO. ,no voodoo coding.
Most of the lighting is already in the photos .This is magic only for some deep amazonia lost tribe.

 

[ecliptic]

All the fanboys better get their story straight. We got some declaring that it's not impressive and others saysing it can't possibly be real time.

 

[PC-Engine]

What really impresses me other than the level of texture detail and photorealistic lighting is the fact this shot is only covering about 15 meters of a street. The full city race track will be composed of a few thousand meters of this exact same detail.

 

[[Brick_top]]

My god how can they get lighting that real??

 

[SanGreal]

Where exactly (link, please) is the starting claim that this is a capture from the game itself? I was just browsing by and my jaw dropped when I saw the original picture. I am still thinking that this cannot possibly be real. Well, actually I am thinking that it is exactly real, as in a photo of a real place. It just doesn't make sense when comparing to other graphics we have been seeing. This doesn't just look good, it looks exactly real.

So, if you would be so kind, could you post the exact link to where the original claim is made that this is real. (All I see is something about this coming from a PGR3 game developer's diary, which is something totally different from saying it comes out of the game itself).

Taken from P5:

OK, once and for all, that is an in game screenshot.

Alan

Yup - I'm going to back this one up as well.

That is 100% an in-game shot. This is PGR3, and this is the bar we're setting.

Chris

both from http://bizarreonline.net/forum/view...t=15&sid=fd3bf5fd78fc74fa488c3665f9970cd7

I hope they realize how high they've set the bar.

 

[pipo]

So, if you would be so kind, could you post the exact link to where the original claim is made that this is real.

Hit 'previous' a couple of times and read...

 

[Jawed]

The thing I find likable about PGR is the motion blur. It doesn't have the fake stuttery effect you see in other games/demos with motion-blur.

Motion blur is also great at covering up low frame rates. I can well believe that 30fps motion blurred with this fantastic level of building detail will feel completely smooth.

All the bizarre guys need to do is fix the shadowing. The shadows are much too deep.

Jawed

 

[Shifty Geezer]

]My god how can they get lighting that real??

Use an offline renderer to raytrace GI (maybe takes an hour or two depending on settings) and apply it as an illumination map. It's basically multitexturing, something a PC from years ago could easily manage (I'm writing something using this technique that works on a 233 MHz K6). The reason we have it now is the 3D raytracing software couldn't do GI back then. It's an advancement in software tools and not rendering techniques.

 

[London Geezer]

]My god how can they get lighting that real??

Use an offline renderer to raytrace GI (maybe takes an hour or two depending on settings) and apply it as an illumination map. It's basically multitexturing, something a PC from years ago could easily manage (I'm writing something using this technique that works on a 233 MHz K6). The reason we have it now is the 3D raytracing software couldn't do GI back then. It's an advancement in software tools and not rendering techniques.

They don't even need to do that. Just take a picture of the buildings, the lighting will be prebaked in the picture. Just slap in on a couple of polygons and stir for 2 mintues. Kids claiming "they look real" will be ready to serve immediately.

 

[talyn99]

Acert93
Senior Member



Joined: 09 Dec 2004
Posts: 1503

Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:53 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jvd wrote:
acert the picture is from the offical site . You can go to it and look at it .




Wayyy to rich Thanks jvd and the poster who gave the link to the Bizarre website w/ real photo ROTFLOL

I am SOOOOO glad I posted on the first page!

I mean seriously, not impressive? The point of a game engine is to use technology that meets the goals of its art direction. I don't care if this has prebaked lighting or uses hi rez photos of real stuff... This is the MOST REALISTIC gameshot I have ever seen. PERIOD.

Not most technical, not most fun, not even the "best"... but definately the most realistic. And that achieves the goal of the team. Those not impressed because because it is lacking some Wizzbang Technical Fad and jargon need to a swift reminder in the rear that technology not only does not make better games, it does not guarantee better looking games.

Design is ALWAYS about tradeoffs. Picking the right balance of technologies to meet your artistic goal is important. Just look at Gears of War and the Namco UE3 game. Night and day. Same technology, but the artists are better on one project and the technology seems more geared toward the former over the later.

So, for those not impressed, very specifically with the "goal product" in mind--why does this screenshot NOT achieve its goal? I am not asking for what wizbang trendy word technology it may be missing, I am asking from an end-product "What you see is what you get AND the most important thing for consumers" where this shot is falling short? What has impressed you SOOOoooo.... much that this shot just makes you say "Unimpressive"? I really must know!

I am laughing so hard at this thread. Even talyn99 liked it. (No offense talyn99, but even you emphatically stated you hhhhhaaate the Xbox) Those who were not impressed all just happen to be very pro Sony. Yeah, ok. This is as bad as people who were dumping on GT4 (who, amazingly, were all Xbox fans!)

This forum is worse than IGN, GAF, etc... at times. Namely because everyone tried to pretend they are objective.

Now I need to go find my hat and eat it... because I still am having a hard time believing that is "in game". I will be awful ticked when we get the final game and it has been downsampled

No problem Acert, I always respected your opinion even before I joined. My eyes are still watering from those shots. Like I said, MS has to live like everyone else, but I'll be hard pressed to support them. What's scary is that if first-gen games looking that good...............whew, you guys know what im trying to say. Games gonna sell off of graphic-whore credentials alone. Sigh, I might have to rethink my stance on a few things and save more money, if you know what I mean.

Say, safe to say the gaming industry is going to grow exponentially. MS cant reach the billion mark, not this generation, but between the big three, I say the total overall gamer number will triple.

Makes you wanna say nah nah to the photorealismwontbereacheduntilPS5 people. Like I say, I'm not totally ognorant to the tech-jargon, but I know what I see. I'm impressed by Burnout Revenge for the PS2, how good does that look. So these graphics should not be so shocking.

 

[[Brick_top]]

]My god how can they get lighting that real??

Use an offline renderer to raytrace GI (maybe takes an hour or two depending on settings) and apply it as an illumination map. It's basically multitexturing, something a PC from years ago could easily manage (I'm writing something using this technique that works on a 233 MHz K6). The reason we have it now is the 3D raytracing software couldn't do GI back then. It's an advancement in software tools and not rendering techniques.

But what exactly are they doing in real time? I thought GI was still years away, is that some sort of ambient oclusion? anyway that might be the most realistic screenshot I have ever seen

 

[MrFloopy]

They don't even need to do that. Just take a picture of the buildings, the lighting will be prebaked in the picture. Just slap in on a couple of polygons and stir for 2 mintues. Kids claiming "they look real" will be ready to serve immediately.

This is a technique that's been used for ... well since texture mapping has been available. People have been discussing this here as though it's some kind of cheat etc.

With this in mind, then can people explain why no game has looked like this before. Now maybe my eyes are fading in my old age but even I had to look at this twice to see if it was a photo, as did all of my colleagues.

Now the question has to be asked: What are some of you talking about?(and this refers to comments about most of the images shown here on next gen systems).

What are you expecting. To be honest I'm glad most of you don't know half the techniques we use to achieve what you get this generation as I fear there would probably be several people having a brain hemorrhage.
People discounting the quality of a product based on a your "discovery" of a technique that has been used for 20+ years and will be used for 20+ more that still works extremely well.

Now I hope that when PS3 pics start to come out, that I cannot (as I suspect I will) accurately predict the responses from various people on these boards.

Please, please for the sake of this forum prove me wrong.

 

[Acert93]

]My god how can they get lighting that real??

Use an offline renderer to raytrace GI (maybe takes an hour or two depending on settings) and apply it as an illumination map. It's basically multitexturing, something a PC from years ago could easily manage (I'm writing something using this technique that works on a 233 MHz K6). The reason we have it now is the 3D raytracing software couldn't do GI back then. It's an advancement in software tools and not rendering techniques.

Shifty is right. This is not a new technique, and not even new to games.

But as the hardware becomes more powerful and the systems have more memory, they have more room to impliment these tricks. What takes hours and hours in an offline renderer for a single frame can be done at 60fps for a static prop. I think it is important to note that this type of lighting is only good for static stuff. The second you hit a wall at 200mph the illusion is destroyed. So it does not work for all games. With the increasing demand for physics, interactive environments, and destructible environments these tricks only work well with certain game types (i.e. pairing the right technologies with your game).

A good example of the contrast in the quality between static and dynamic shadowing/lighting is BF2. The prebake stuff looks soft and natural. The dynamic shadows are blocky and nastified--AND they are a resource hog. This is what all the hooplah over D3 was about: dynamic shadows and lighting that actually looked good. But that technology is still evolving. Right now static lighting looks better and is basically free (as long as you have the memory resources to store it... one of the limitations on a console with 32-64MB of memory). So prebaked works for some games, and not for others.

But a pretty racing game where the scenery is static? Go for it. Its a good use of resources, and as you are just zipping by at 170mph it does not reall matter much how it is done as long as it looks good while you zip by and is as small of a performance hit as possible.

On the other hand this implimentation would not work as well for Full Auto or The Outfit as both games have environments that can be blown up. Once the environment becomes interactive prebaked lighting and shadowing pose challenges. I also have not seen a good "Night-Day" cycle in a game with static lighting/shadowing.

Shifty, good point about the GI in offline renderers. The advancement of tools and their increased accessibility (and usefullness) in games is really important. This is why Sony, EA, MS, etc... are all very interested in leveraging middleware. The better tools developers have the better games, on the whole, we will get.