The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*

[nightshade]

The shadow system is new - last PoP had the same old jagged AC1/2 shadows. Besides that they've seemed to have worked in all the improvements from the last PoP (ssao, sun rays, etc..).

Are you sure ? cause when I played the Brotherhood multiplayer beta I didn't notice either of those stuff.

 

[N_B]

Are the god rays really the dynamic variety (ie Crysis, Far Cry 2)?

Whats here just looks like the standard static pre-placed stuff:

http://www.lensoftruth.com/wp-conte...in_bh_analysis/xbox-360-rollover_slide_04.jpg

 

[PhilB]

Are you sure ? cause when I played the Brotherhood multiplayer beta I didn't notice either of those stuff.

Correct, neither were in the beta. I haven't played the game yet either so perhaps they're not in the mp at all.

Whats here just looks like the standard static pre-placed stuff:

Can't see the screen but if you mean the ones inside the building in the beginning then yes they are static sprite based. On a few videos of the outside levels the same sunshafts can be seen that were in the last PoP.

 

[N_B]

Yeah, tenth or so down. Oddly missing on PS3?:

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=24367d

 

[AlNom]

Are you sure ? cause when I played the Brotherhood multiplayer beta I didn't notice either of those stuff.

In the retail, the sun-cast shadows appear to use jittered-sample PCF. Certain situations result in the usual PCF though (just going by screenshots, so I'm not sure if the latter situation is due to a placed dynamic shadow-casting light source).

 

[assurdum]

I heard that in Rome PS3 version runs on par with/worse than AC2, so LoT coparison is probably useless (first ~30min o the game). Looks like trophies are bugged too, just like they were in AC2 (Ubi never patched them)... So Ubi lied to us (anyone suprised? )? Or maybe 360 runs not so great in Rome section too. I hope DF comparison will be completed soon

Ubisoft has guaranted on the ps3 the same fps of the 360, from what we know. Will see in the other face off, but I pretty skeptical about the rumours in the net.

 

[Ruskie]

AC:B Face Off is here!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-assassins-creed-brotherhood-face-off

 

[(((interference)))]

Can all discussion on AC:B be in the Digital Foundry thread, rather than having separate discussions in different threads?

 

[Billy Idol]

from a pure tech point of view:

is there something special about GT 5 engine? is it possible to judge if the engine squeezes more performance out of the station than other PS3 engines?

we only know the tech buzz words, like rather high resolution for a console game, high fps (up to 60), good quality lightning, 16 cars on track, rather detailed cars and rather extended large tracks like Nürburgring.

so, comparing those buzzwords to the tech facts of other games (especially 60 fps games on PS3):

a) they somehow squeeze more power out of the station compared to other devs
b) there are some brutal tradeoffs

What do you guys think?

 

[Neb]

Well first of all your looking at a racing game which can afford to have tons of pre-baking without it being to obvious to player. I wouldn't call it brutal tradeoffs but instead possible tradeoffs becouse it wont break illusion to much like it would in a TPS/FPS where you have a decent play area and not just a thin line. Also racing games allows culling to be used in very controlled form having forest texture walls etc. It's interesting and as I have a modelling program that can import NFS:SHift tracks and cars I can see how it's done. Actually IIRC Nürburgring was about less than 1m polygons for whole track with no culling and highest LODs in Shift and the track is highly detailed. Obviously far far less when racing as then LODs comes to play and culling is active which involves cutting out what is not scene and non-visible road segments culled out.

 

[KKRT]

@Nebula

And it also have less complex rendering on other things

Can You name one? I agree that comparison of photo mode vs gameplay etc is bullshit, but i cant think of any superiority in term of tech in FM 3 over GT 5 [maybe except reflections because in Forza player car reflect others]

 

[ion]

It's not an excuse - it's a compromise. These are finite boxes with limited resources, so they have to decide where to invest. In PD's case, they always favour the cars, and always have done. On PS2, GT3 and 4's scenery was very primitive compared to other racers, with obvious repeating textures etc. i've never understood repeating grass textures as it's easy to elliminate by just applying a second texture, but it remains common.

Comprimise and limited resources? Where was that a problem on all the other detailed tracks? It just simply does not explain why some tracks have great detail and very convincing of the real thing in life while others lack very much of the same detail despite the real life photo comparisons...in other words its very obvious they focused more on certain tracks than they did on others. They could have called them Premium tracks, but they didn't and its misleading.

 

[-tkf-]

Comprimise and limited resources? Where was that a problem on all the other detailed tracks? It just simply does not explain why some tracks have great detail and very convincing of the real thing in life while others lack very much of the same detail despite the real life photo comparisons...in other words its very obvious they focused more on certain tracks than they did on others. They could have called them Premium tracks, but they didn't and its misleading.

I think there is more to it than that, some tracks are just easier to give a fantastic look, and i am sure more tricks can be used on Monaco and other street tracks. I think that variety adds alot to the impression of the track.

 

[(((interference)))]

GT has always had weak scenery, but has generally been regarded as the better looking games because so much attention is lavished on the cars to make them look realistic. It's a different distribution of resources. GT's philosophy is that most of the time the scenery is whizzing by and you're not looking at it except in the distance, whereas you are looking at cars travelling in close proximty. As such, why spend time modelling plants that aren't going to be noticed excpet in static screenshots? You can also always find weak screenshots from any game, and should get a full range of images. That Gamekult website doesn't particularly explore the city tracks. Lots of random images including

I expect there's an engine issue. The entire GT5 engine won't be set up to render lots of tall grass as you get in the TopGear test track. There's really nothing to that environment to make it interesting. If it's the main test place for cars though, it'd be nice if they gave it special attention though at least when you're only running one car and have resources to spare to making it prettier.

I mostly drive in bonnet cam/ cockpit view so you don't usually see the cars as much as you notice the environments - and believe me you can notice 2D foliage and flat, one colour, pool table surface grass textures.

The car models you mostly notice in the replays, (and they could always swap in a higher LOD for replays) not in gameplay (unless you use chase cam - which is difficult to drive in with sims).

And as for the simple and plain tracks arguments - they should be easier to make look realistic right?

For example, I agree the Laguna Seca may not be the most interesting track in the world but in Forza 3 (the only other 60fps sim) it looks fine simply because they attempt to realistically recreate the track

The question is that of consistency of quality which is especially pertinent for a game which has been in development for 5 years with a limitless budget.

And do we know how they do the car lighting in GT5? That's what makes the models really stand out compared to the competition - it also seems that they're using more advanced lighting setup in photomode vs replays/ingame.

 

[TheWretched]

Well first of all your looking at a racing game which can afford to have tons of pre-baking without it being to obvious to player. I wouldn't call it brutal tradeoffs but instead possible tradeoffs becouse it wont break illusion to much like it would in a TPS/FPS where you have a decent play area and not just a thin line. Also racing games allows culling to be used in very controlled form having forest texture walls etc. It's interesting and as I have a modelling program that can import NFS:SHift tracks and cars I can see how it's done. Actually IIRC Nürburgring was about less than 1m polygons for whole track with no culling and highest LODs in Shift and the track is highly detailed. Obviously far far less when racing as then LODs comes to play and culling is active which involves cutting out what is not scene and non-visible road segments culled out.

Well... todays FPS aren't much different from race tracks anymore, either... walk from a to b and shoot everything in your way (looking at the COD franchise now, for example). I know there are other fps with more freedom (say HL2 or Crysis), but most are build like most of FFXIII.

 

[Neb]

Yes but in gameplay area you can move in a racing game is incredibly limited compared to TPS/FPS games. If you would eanble clipping in a racing game and move camera outside circuit track by just a small distance the tree texture walls would look horrible, objects with baked shadows, lighting, extremly repetitive textures, no mapping, really lowres textures etc. You would have what FPS/TPS games looked like a year 2000 (or a bit better depeding on racing game) in HD.

 

[Neb]

Yes, but its usually higher LOD models, no aliasing, extra motion blur - this looks like a completely different game to the trailers which look photo real.

The cars don't look bad, but the environments are shocking - even worse looking than Forza 2 (which is probably the worst looking racing sim this console generation)

http://cdn.cnetnetworks.fr/gamekult-com/images/photos/00/01/33/96/ME0001339620_2.jpg

Look at the tree sprites and the abysmally, low res road texture.

It reminds me of GT HD, which also had some terrible looking environments but everyone was happy with the cars and were sure it would be fixed in the final game.

IMO it makes no sense to have such huge disparity in visuals, I'm sure the other tracks (especially the city ones) are far better looking - why can't they make a simple track with just grass and trees look passable, it's hardly a demanding environment to render.

I mean it's not like they haven't had enough time - it seems like a massive oversight by a supposedly perfectionist studio

It differs with circuit tracks. You can browse the large screenshot collection of GT5 at Gamekult.

http://www.gamekult.com/actu/gran-turismo-5-images-et-videos-maison-A0000088902.html

 

[patsu]

The Forza tracks have more texture details. For most people, it probably won't make a difference while racing. They should have spent more effort on the cars.

The tracks/sceneries will make more differences during replay and photo modes. But when the players finally get to replay their matches, they will see the 30fps touched up ones in GT5.

So pausing a race to show the artifacts may not be the mainstream experience (and hence, likely not their optimization priority).

I tried the demo in GameStop, while it may not be perfect, I thought it's a very pretty game. Most of the time, in GT5P, I saw shader alias and the flickering shadow. They seem to have improved it somehow although I'm not positive (The issues didn't jump out like in GT5P). I suspect these will continue to be the key visual issues. I also wonder if PD uses any temporal techniques that may be turned off when you pause the race.

 

[TheWretched]

Yes but in gameplay area you can move in a racing game is incredibly limited compared to TPS/FPS games. If you would eanble clipping in a racing game and move camera outside circuit track by just a small distance the tree texture walls would look horrible, objects with baked shadows, lighting, extremly repetitive textures, no mapping, really lowres textures etc. You would have what FPS/TPS games looked like a year 2000 (or a bit better depeding on racing game) in HD.

Go and try that in Half Life 2... same thing. Smoke and Mirrors, nothing else. Why would they waste processing power on that anyways?

 

[Neb]

Go and try that in Half Life 2... same thing. Smoke and Mirrors, nothing else. Why would they waste processing power on that anyways?

I own HL2, it gives far greater play area than any strict A->B racing game and HL2 is a linear FPS. This means more to render in detail as player can approach more of the scene and it needs to be of high quality enough. Thus avg texture budget needs to be bigger, more collision detection, more AI navigation nods, handle battles, particles, animations etc etc than if it was a racing game. You cannot have tree sprites like in GT5 for a FPS/TPS where you can get close to the trees when the sprites have the quality you found early 2000 in games, no you would need a more detailed tree hence this tree sprite/wall shortcut wont work except for non reachable areas with some distance from player. Also game is from early 2004.