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).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.
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.
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.Also, about the Wreckless comment. anyone who can even mention that game in the same sentence as GT3 needs to be punished.
Which wouldn't make the engine that sustains all of that any less impressive for handling the load.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"
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.without worrying about making a "game",
It was a 30 hz title like most titles on all platforms are.or about framerates either for that matter.
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.
Lazy8s said:It was a 30 hz title like most titles on all platforms are.
Many PS2 action adventure games use heat shimmer on torches and flames etc. so it's not exactly something that hasn't been done before. Whether PD feels it's worth to bother with is another matter.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?
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?
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.
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.
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.