Project Gotham Racing 3 Designer Diary #1 (new screens!)

[Shifty Geezer]

This could just be a difference of interpretation of language. Frame rate can mean how often the front buffer is updated (or more accurately, backbuffer switched to front buffer), or how often the game is updated.

For a stable 60 fps you need every frame to be calculated and rendered in under 1/60th of a second, ready in time for the next vertical. So the output fps is 60, and the internal game process is faster than 60 fps. You can thus claim the game runs faster than 60 fps (internal workings) or exactly 60 fps (output) and both be right, just with a different meaning for fps. Which is what I'm getting reading this, but I'm not reading very closely!

 

[Apoc]

As for PC being better, we had a thread on this running last week or so. That's the right place to add your comments on the matter on how a $2000 PC rig has internally more peak graphics power thana $300 console (go figure!)

Can you post the link to that thread (or the thread name)? I'm very interested but i can't find it.

 

[darkblu]

For a stable 60 fps you need every frame to be calculated and rendered in under 1/60th of a second, ready in time for the next vertical. So the output fps is 60, and the internal game process is faster than 60 fps. You can thus claim the game runs faster than 60 fps (internal workings) or exactly 60 fps (output) and both be right, just with a different meaning for fps. Which is what I'm getting reading this, but I'm not reading very closely!

yes, shifty, we already covered that (in my second reply to Acert93, i believe), and it's not being debated. what is, is if the measure of average fps (regardless of whether measured at the back or at the front buffer) has any relevance to the stability of the fps. which it doesn't and which he says we both agree upon but for some reason he threw in his 'average must be above 60' criterion. now, why would he bring in a meaningless measure to the discussion is something i've been trying to comprehend, unsuccessfully so far.

 

[Sis]

no. you've plain misundertood what i wrote. go read it again, particularly that sentense with the 'bottomline' word in it. maybe before accusing me of 'hair-splitting with respected members' you may actually care to comprehend the discussion?

Yes. I'm the one with the comprehension problem. Where's the eye-rolling emoticon at? Oh, here it is:

Seriously, maybe it is just a language thing where since english is my first language I'm much more relaxed about the grammer. Then again, I love this quote:

i believe i quoted exactly the two sentenses of yours that needed correction, nothing more nothing less. if you don't believe them to read what they appear to (not only to me, apparently) you can go on and correct them/clarify them so that they start to be correct.

Which is another way of saying, "I will take what you say out of context if that's what I want to do."

At this point, maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

.Sis

 

[London Geezer]

In the current thread: Can't take a joke/defined fps debate
I would just like to point out to the SENIOR members who complained so heavily about how it was the "new" members derailing threads (during the gone again here again console board times), that maybe it is time to walk the walk, instead of the "Do as I say, not as I do", mentality.

​

Easy boy. Senior members can still be idiots, they're just idiots with bigger post counts.

 

[Neeyik]

Easy boy for everyone here please - there's enough nit-picking, misconstrued replies and off-topic comments to sink a small frigate in this thread! Stick to the proper topic please folks.

 

[darkblu]

Which is another way of saying, "I will take what you say out of context if that's what I want to do."

so quoting other people's posts verbatimly is now considered 'taking out of context'. funny, where did you say one could find that rollies emoticon?

At this point, maybe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing?

no. it's you who is arguing without even having a point, as i don't remeber you building up one. as about me, i am arguing that Acert93 corrects his inapporopriate average-fps-to-solid-fps correlation he originally made in this thead. because this is beyond3d, and people often use these boards to build up their very understanding on 3d matters, so you'd say that repsected b3d posters should be more careful with the statements they make around here. a half-truth posted here may cause quite some damage elsewhere.

 

[czekon]

my 50 cents i dont get why this FPS conversation is still going for me stable 60 fps mean that animation dont get under 60 fps and thats all.
Like in quake with command max fps, for e. write max_fps=60 and you dont get more then 60 fps but ur PC must be able to render all the time gfx with framerate 60 fps without any slowdowns.

 

[Sis]

so quoting other people's posts verbatimly is now considered 'taking out of context'. funny, where did you say one could find that rollies emoticon?

I turned on the advanced editor and it's on the right...oh, you were being sarcastic.

no. it's you who is arguing without even having a point, as i don't remeber you building up one.

Exactly why I wondered if you were arguing just to argue. I have read yours and Acerts posts several times trying to find out what it is you are debating and I can't find it. The purpose of my posts weren't to argue with you so I'll step out now

.Sis

 

[seismologist]

wow, the hands-on impressions are making the game sound underwhelming.
Graphics quality doesn't live up to the screenshots, etc.
Supposedly NFS is alot more fun.

 

[robofunk]

More like you have to spend time actually racing instead of gawking at the graphics. PGR3 is supposed to add a lot of nuances to the Kudos system that probably aren't apparent to people driving it. The new system can also differentiate between types of powerslides, good/bad lines, braking and I'm sure more. People are saying it's PGR2 with better graphics, people seem to forget PGR2 is probably one of the best racing games ever. Best arcade/sim racing game no doubt in my mind, but I can't think of any competition of the top of my head. Rallysport Challenge 2 maybe, but I wouldn't say they compete against each other.

If Need for Speed is more fun it's because it's easier to pick up and play. The PGR series while not a simulation has always had a learning curve not found on Arcade racers. It certainly has more depth.

They also can't really touch on things like Live! or the track creator. The track creator is probably the most inovative feature and something we might not see in another game till PGR4 (checkpoints in games like Midnight Club don't really count).

 

[Phil]

So your minimum framerate in any given sample is most likely going to be below 60fps, even if your average is well above 60fps. Take Doom3 on the 7800GTX. Even capped at 60fps you can see the game drop a bit below 60fps. Even an SLI rig does. (Note in that link the average FPS is lower than 60fps because of the cap; if there were no cap the average would be well above 60fps, but the drops would still occur).

Of course Doom 3 on a 7800GTX or 7800GTX SLI is very smooth, even if it drops some frames. The key is limiting the number of drops. The higher the number of drops the greater chance you will begin to "annoy" someone or they will notice.

I think the fallacy of your argument is that you are using PC games as reference, which in my experience - regardless of the rig I've used - always had the occasional hickups in framerate eventhough the game ran smooth 99% of the time. I experience this today in games like Half-Life which should run perfect given my 2.6 GHz rig with the latest graphics card. I suspect many framerate flaws appear due to harddrive access and other reasons.

On a console however, these issues can be overcome and for a many games that run at a rock-solid 60 fps don't exist - at all. An example on top of my head would be Gran Turismo 3 and 4. Both run a rock solid 60 fps, never dipping below. In that sense, I agree with Darkblue further up - in these cases, the minimum framerate never dips below 60 fps. In fact, an easier way to look at it is that the game runs at a constant 60 fps, never going below, never above. When less workload is done, the engine waits before it starts rendering the new frame, thus, the constant target framerate is always achieved.

 

[rusty]

wow, the hands-on impressions are making the game sound underwhelming.
Graphics quality doesn't live up to the screenshots, etc.
Supposedly NFS is alot more fun.

got any links?

all i've heard about "hands on" pgr3 from various scattered forum posts seems fairly positive

 

[dukmahsik]

wow, the hands-on impressions are making the game sound underwhelming.
Graphics quality doesn't live up to the screenshots, etc.
Supposedly NFS is alot more fun.

list them

 

[seismologist]

http://www.gamingsteve.com/podcasts/Gaming-Steve-2005-10-17.mp3

It's in this super long mp3 roundtable with impressions from about 4 different editors. Most of them didn't seem too impressed with PGR3.

Graphics are good but doesn't seem like 96k polygons per car.
Gameplay feels just like PGR2.
Cars felt a little heavy.
Basically graphics are good but they weren't blown away. The fun factor of NFS outweighs any gfx differences.

They thought the Gotham TV thing was cool.

It's a great interview gives impressions of alot of games.

 

[Jon Brittan]

wow, the hands-on impressions are making the game sound underwhelming.
Graphics quality doesn't live up to the screenshots, etc.

Could we have some links to hands-on impressions? I haven't seen any from anywhere reputable as yet and would be interested to see what people have to say.

Supposedly NFS is alot more fun.

That is completely subjective, they're not really comparable games.
Personally I'd agree with that statement as regards the PGR series and the latest couple of iterations of NFS purely because, the way my job has been recently, I only have the time to sit down for limited amounts of play-time and I want something where I can have immediate fun. I find the NFS: Underground games more accessible for simply sitting down, blasting through a few races and getting on with the next RL task, while in PGR I find I try to aim for perfection a great deal more and as such need an amount of time to get myself into the PGR driving mode every time I play. I still own both PGR titles and enjoy them a great deal and in different circumstances may actually prefer them, but for my current gaming situation and needs I simply find NFS:U/2 better suited while I can see it would be entirely different for someone else.

 

[dukmahsik]

http://www.gamingsteve.com/podcasts/Gaming-Steve-2005-10-17.mp3

It's in this super long mp3 roundtable with impressions from about 4 different editors. Most of them didn't seem too impressed with PGR3.

Graphics are good but doesn't seem like 96k polygons per car.
Gameplay feels just like PGR2.
Cars felt a little heavy.
Basically graphics are good but they weren't blown away. The fun factor of NFS outweighs any gfx differences.

They thought the Gotham TV thing was cool.

It's a great interview gives impressions of alot of games.

they are nitpicking, pgr2 had good gameplay it was a blast on live.
you're taking one roundtable and blowing the game off. if they are expecting every game to blow them away graphically then they are in for a big disappointment for 90% of the games next gen.

the screens and vids of this game tells me otherwise.

 

[London Geezer]

the screens and vids of this game tells me otherwise.

The screens and internet videos are not the real thing though. You don't play screenshots and internet-dloaded videos. It's almost like you're saying that you know that they should have been blown away because you've seen the game looking good in previews screenshots, while they've had the real thing in their hands!

 

[czekon]

http://www.gamingsteve.com/podcasts/Gaming-Steve-2005-10-17.mp3

It's in this super long mp3 roundtable with impressions from about 4 different editors. Most of them didn't seem too impressed with PGR3.

Graphics are good but doesn't seem like 96k polygons per car.
Gameplay feels just like PGR2.
Cars felt a little heavy.
Basically graphics are good but they weren't blown away. The fun factor of NFS outweighs any gfx differences.

They thought the Gotham TV thing was cool.

It's a great interview gives impressions of alot of games.

sounds like BS to me

 

[mckmas8808]

sounds like BS to me

Hate to say it but I agree with this man.