Question about GT3 replay mode

If the load on CPU, VU, GPU etc is the same (game mode vs. replay mode), models are the same..why not to add post processing effects in game mode?
 
Because GT3 is not Wreckless.
The motion blur and depth of field are there in replays to simulate a TV camera.
While driving there obviously is no such camera view, because the game is then viewed through the eyes of the driver.
 
rabidrabbit said:
Because GT3 is not Wreckless.
The motion blur and depth of field are there in replays to simulate a TV camera.
While driving there obviously is no such camera view, because the game is then viewed through the eyes of the driver.
Perhaps motion blur can be used, instead of the heat haze effect, to simulate the exhaust, heat shimmer effect, like EMBM in some PC titles..exactly through the eyes of the driver (first person mode, obviously).

f1heat035.jpg


Is it possible? :oops:
 
PC-Engine said:
For bonuses,create skid marks or knock over cones.Pay very close attention to where you do all of this,and then replay you game.You will find that they were exactly where you put them.

And what does this have anything to do with better replay graphics? Nothing.

It's a good thing I had to work.

But,anyway,to answer your question.It is to show that the game is not an FMV or an enhanced mode -- but actual footage taken from real-time.That's what it has to do with the graphics and replay mode.
 
london-boy:
Also, about the Wreckless comment. anyone who can even mention that game in the same sentence as GT3 needs to be punished.
You know, Wreckless was a very impressive engine, from a very small third-party development team, produced on a very short schedule, and created under the struggle of having to work through lots of untranslated tech documentation.
The developers of Wreckless cut&pasted Nvidia code and put those effects in the game just so that they could tick a box in the feature list and market the game as "the game that pushes the most effects in realtime"
Which wouldn't make the engine that sustains all of that any less impressive for handling the load.
without worrying about making a "game",
While the gameplay was rather limited (and how many near-launch games aren't), the appeal of the play could easily be greater to some than the comparative Sunday drive of Gran Turismo 3.
or about framerates either for that matter.
It was a 30 hz title like most titles on all platforms are.
 
Lazy8s said:
While the gameplay was rather limited (and how many near-launch games aren't), the appeal of the play could easily be greater to some than the comparative Sunday drive of Gran Turismo 3.

Some peole are crazy, we already know that; Wreckless is an horrid game. If someone is looking for a good arcade racer, wreckless is not the one to look for, if someone looks for insipid gameplay packed with very good full screen effects then this one might consider Wreckless a.k.a Double Steal.
It was one of the 2 firsts games i bought with my newly acquired Xbox BTW. :LOL:

Lazy8s said:
It was a 30 hz title like most titles on all platforms are.

30fps + racing games = Pure Evil. :devilish:

IMHO, of course.

OTOH, as you said Double Steal was the work of a very young team, Bunkasha is firstly a publishing house (paper), Double Steal was their first game (actually i read that they done games in the 8bits era, but that was an another team).
 
Perhaps motion blur can be used, instead of the heat haze effect, to simulate the exhaust, heat shimmer effect, like EMBM in some PC titles..exactly through the eyes of the driver (first person mode, obviously). Is it possible?
Many PS2 action adventure games use heat shimmer on torches and flames etc. :p so it's not exactly something that hasn't been done before. Whether PD feels it's worth to bother with is another matter.
 
Spidermate said:
PC-Engine said:
For bonuses,create skid marks or knock over cones.Pay very close attention to where you do all of this,and then replay you game.You will find that they were exactly where you put them.

And what does this have anything to do with better replay graphics? Nothing.

It's a good thing I had to work.

But,anyway,to answer your question.It is to show that the game is not an FMV or an enhanced mode -- but actual footage taken from real-time.That's what it has to do with the graphics and replay mode.

And how is this different from any other replay mode in other racing games? Isn't the whole point of a replay is to show exactly what happened during the race? Also who on this board said it was FMV?
 
And how is this different from any other replay mode in other racing games? Isn't the whole point of a replay is to show exactly what happened during the race? Also who on this board said it was FMV?

You seem to have me confused with someone else.I never said that anyone on this board claimed GT3 of having FMVs.I said some may even claim that it has FMVs.Meaning,it could be manys of people.

You have just answered your own question.I guess there won't be a need afterall to simplifying my explination. :)
 
Why is it that every time someone (atlease the most insecure ones) are proven wrong or confronted with legitimate sources,they are reduce to picking apart negligible pieces of your message that doesn't even pertain to the topic?I have wittness this alot but have never gotten it.Not everyone is always accurate (includes college professors which I have witness) when writing.It seems as though a person like this has to retaliate with such comments to keep from looking entirely defeated. :? But,that would be my opinion.
 
Spidermate said:
Why is it that every time someone (atlease the most insecure ones) is proven wrong or confronted with legitimate sources,they are reduce to picking apart negligible pieces of your message that doesn't even pertain to the topic?I have wittness this alot but have never gotten it.Not everyone is always accurate (includes college professors which I have witness) when writing.It seems as though a person like this has to retaliate with such comments to keep from looking entirely defeated. :? But,that would be my opinion.


^ ^ Huh? I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that sometimes it's hard to keep track of what u're saying. Nothing to do with GT3, no, but if i don't say it, no one else will and i'll keep getting an headache anytime i read something of yours.

Again, this has nothing to do with being "defeated", since i pretty much agree with u in the discussion. There's really nothing to disagree on either. So there.
 
^ ^ Huh? I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that sometimes it's hard to keep track of what u're saying. Nothing to do with GT3, no, but if i don't say it, no one else will and i'll keep getting an headache anytime i read something of yours.

Again, this has nothing to do with being "defeated", since i pretty much agree with u in the discussion. There's really nothing to disagree on either. So there.

That is still an overstatement.You do know that,right?There is no other term that uses spelling close to the "explination" term above except for the actual word itself.Therefore,one does not just develop headaches figuring out its meaning unless:

A) they don't understand the term
or
B) are exaggerating the term as a whole

These are on basic English test,by the way.Now,if the word was written as 'acceplinasion',ok,then... I can understand your point.But,what is written above is a mere letter in the place of another.

....just pointing that out.
 
Spidermate said:
^ ^ Huh? I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that sometimes it's hard to keep track of what u're saying. Nothing to do with GT3, no, but if i don't say it, no one else will and i'll keep getting an headache anytime i read something of yours.

Again, this has nothing to do with being "defeated", since i pretty much agree with u in the discussion. There's really nothing to disagree on either. So there.

That is still an overstatement.You do know that,right?There is no other term that uses spelling close to the "explination" term above except for the actual word itself.Therefore,one does not just develop headaches figuring out its meaning unless:

A) they don't understand the term
or
B) are exaggerating the term as a whole

These are on basic English test,by the way.Now,if the word was written as 'acceplinasion',ok,then... I can understand your point.But,what is written above is a mere letter in the place of another.

....just pointing that out.

Not going to continue this discussion, but let me just say, "explination" was not the problem, if that's the only mistake you can pick up from you post, then great. Also, i think someone around here is taking things a tad bit too seriously.
 
Faf, i saw many examples of accumulation buffer procedures applied to PS2 games (like heat haze in GT3, or motion blur in ZOE), but only to entire screen..is it possible to apply the effect only to a portion, to an object, like the shot i linked? Thanks.
 
Murakami said:
Faf, i saw many examples of accumulation buffer procedures applied to PS2 games (like heat haze in GT3, or motion blur in ZOE), but only to entire screen..is it possible to apply the effect only to a portion, to an object, like the shot i linked? Thanks.

I think that's how heat haze is done in some games, like Jak&Daxter and sequel to name one out of tens of games doing this, to simulate the heat coming from a flame. It's just one portion of the screen. Actually, pretty much every flame i've seen in a game has some kind of heat haze effect, everyone is doing it now!
 
Back
Top