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

[2real4tv]

It would make more sense to compare same track imo.

 

[(((interference)))]

The sillyness of these discussions drive me nuts. For instance, those arrows pointing at 'low quality 2D backdrop' in the GT shot, with arrows pointing to mountains that actually are 3D with some very good textures on them. Lots of similar nonsense going on - I think we can do better than that.

And yeah, the trees on Nurburgring are 2D. But at least there are so many of them there (and they seem quite varied too), that I think it was a good decision.

We now have various track and car combos in both games though, so I'm expecting we'll be able to get some really neat comparison shots.

Yes, I never said those comparisons were technically accurate, got them from GAF.

If they're not 2D mountains (and that includes simple textured geometry), then are these also 2D or 3D? Certainly the ones in Forza look more convincing - the geometry might be simple but it looks like they're using bump mapping or something:

It would make more sense to compare same track imo.

It certainly would, the only ones I can find are of Suzuka circuit (and it's Prologue not GT5):
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/2/4/5/2/8/ps3_001.bmp.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/2/4/5/2/8/360_001.bmp.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/2/4/5/2/8/360_004.bmp.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/8/2/4/5/2/8/PS3_004.bmp.jpg

You can clearly see that the biggest difference is down to lighting.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, I never said those comparisons were technically accurate, got them from GAF.

They are clearly fanboy creations and the labels should be ignored.

If they're not 2D mountains (and that includes simple textured geometry), then are these also 2D or 3D? Certainly the ones in Forza look more convincing - the geometry might be simple but it looks like they're using bump mapping or something:

The GT5 2D mountains are distant mountains AFAIK, that you'll never get close to. The nearer mountains like those in your Forza pics will be modelled geometry to some degree, even if only a collection or rather abrupt, flat surfaces with simple textures slapped on.

 

[Neb]

Another absolutely atrocious screen from GT5. I really don't believe that a AAA title can have such bad looking scenery - they should have budgeted for some level of track detail - even if it was mediocre. It hardly seems sensible to have photorealistic cars paired with environments from two generations ago, I mean look at NFS:HP2 the cars look fantastic, amazing shaders, come quite close to matching GT5 in gameplay and the draw distance is 15 km - now surely GT5 will not be able to compete since it's running at 60fps but it shouldn't have so big a disparity in visuals.

They need to acomodate perfomance to allow 16 cars at 60fps and do MSAA. Also such spots will not be present constantly and one could class it as the lower part of the visual IQ curve. About NFS:HP2, you should see it on the PC, saw the draw distance and foliage render distance in a forum..

But lets not forget it is 30fps on consoles and it might not have 16 car support though NFS:Shift has 16 car support for all tracks.

http://www.pictureupload.de/originals/pictures/221110233007_NFS11_2010-11-22_22-44-14-85.jpg
http://www.pictureupload.de/originals/pictures/221110232733_NFS11_2010-11-22_23-22-12-89.jpg
http://www.pictureupload.de/originals/pictures/221110232626_NFS11_2010-11-22_23-12-47-25.jpg
http://www.pictureupload.de/originals/pictures/221110232546_NFS11_2010-11-22_23-02-27-83.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/zwischenablage03n5wn.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/zwischenablage068bnw.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/zwischenablage120b8o.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/zwischenablage13zy1f.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/zwischenablage170yyr.jpg

And in this screen, the Eiger Nordland track looks exactly like it did back in GT HD, replete with pathethic 2D mountains, nothing like the bump mapped mountains you get in Forza :
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5194363017_e1f78c5fee_o.jpg
http://cdn.forzamotorsport.net/uplo...Screenshots/FM3_E3_Montserrat_2(2).jpg?n=6962

I wouldn't say Forza 3 has normal mapping but it has higher resolution texture and it got detail texture layer(s) applied on terrain surface. While the GT5 mountains looks like a not so high-res photo mapped to simple geometry in F3 you got quite rich geometry amount on mountains aswell as detail layers.

What is exactly the difference between how car lighting and shadowing (and reflections) is done in GT5 vs Forza 3? Is it primarily due to better tech better or artistry? IIRC GT5 Prologue did environment reflections by projecting the road surface texture on the car's exterior, does GT5 still do this?

I think a big part is artistry as F3 has more of this 'computer generated' look. Maybe it can be due to textures being created by artists and not being photo based textures. Lighting also seems more tailored for chosen art style.

 

[Neb]

IMy "problem" with your post is mostly that you say "hey, racing games cheat much more than FPS", which is simply not true, at least not always. Plus, GT5 actually has mostly stable 60Hz, compared to CODBLOPS' 40Hz or less. Looking at NFS:HP for example, as a 30Hz game, it has much more elaborate environments. But why not, it simply has twice the time to render all that stuff, and it's open world to boot.

You are missunderstanding my point. I am saying racing games can cheat a lot more than FPS/TPS games as the playable area is narrow and extremly linear. You are going down a fixed patch, the road. The rendering load can be focused on the cars while scenery at the sidetrack can be simplistic yet look convincing. In a FPS/TPS game you have more paths/bigger play area and need to have the whole are in good quality enough to be convincing and look good. Racing games can get away with lots of static objects, pre-baking and sprites. In a FPS/TPS game it would be jarring if the trees 10m to your sides would be cross shaped or single polygon based billboards when you walk up to them. Also FPS/TPS games uses normal mapping to give detail and convincing surfaces upclose. In racing games most is normal mapping free with prebaked lighting except cars, road surface and possibly grass/dirt on road sides which might have normal/specular mapping.

 

[Sigfried1977]

The mountains comparison is especially silly since that's what the Eiger Nordwand looks like in reality. There are no race tracks at the mountain tops, so obviously you are going to look at them from a certain distance. I'm not even disagreeing that the FM3 mountains look more flashy, but that's like complaining that the Nurburgring looks duller than the Monaco race track.

 

[Yashamaru]

So are you guys comparing two game like FM 3 (max 8 car on track and 720p MSAA2x) with GT 5 (with 16 car on track 1280x1080 MSAA 2x...)? Are you mad or what? I'd like to see FM 3 run at the same resolution of GT5, with the same ammount of car on screen and aiming to 60fps >.> It's obvious that resolution, number of car on screen and the framerate can impact some aspect of the gfx department.

 

[Toaddio]

So are you guys comparing two game like FM 3 (max 8 car on track and 720p MSAA2x) with GT 5 (with 16 car on track 1280x1080 MSAA 2x...)? Are you mad or what? I'd like to see FM 3 run at the same resolution of GT5, with the same ammount of car on screen and aiming to 60fps >.> It's obvious that resolution, number of car on screen and the framerate can impact some aspect of the gfx department.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2jLrNYzyr8

Personally, I'd like to see this thread culled, or simply brought out back and shot to death.

 

[L. Scofield]

Why were my posts removed? I think it was a valid observation that the Lens of Truth comparisons are anything but reliable.

 

[Clerigo]

You can clearly see that the biggest difference is down to lighting.

Yes it is, and overall, the biggest difference between the two, is that GT5P looks more clean and way more realistic than FM3, but I applaud your effort to try to convince us otherwise.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Personally, I'd like to see this thread culled, or simply brought out back and shot to death.

I agree, but I'm giving it a little more chance for people to make something worthwhile of the discussion, before I give up and erradicate the whole racing game comparison. Comparisons are generally not allowed, and this is the reason why, with lots of noise yet weak discussion.

 

[JB9861]

So are you guys comparing two game like FM 3 (max 8 car on track and 720p MSAA2x) with GT 5 (with 16 car on track 1280x1080 MSAA 2x...)? Are you mad or what? I'd like to see FM 3 run at the same resolution of GT5, with the same ammount of car on screen and aiming to 60fps >.> It's obvious that resolution, number of car on screen and the framerate can impact some aspect of the gfx department.

It comes down to PD being the more talented studio/focused more on tech than Turn 10. We know GT will win the sales comparison and probably to most the visual side, but the reviews is where Turn 10 could be vindicated for their approach and focus on gameplay innovations.

 

[KKRT]

the reviews is where Turn 10 could be vindicated for their approach and focus on gameplay innovations.

With Prologue definately, but GT 5 is really pushing a genre forward with enormous B-spec mode [almost new game] , online customization, GTAnywhere and mixing many types of racing like SuperGT, WRC, Nascar, Karting in one games, course creator for random WRC events and personal tracks, and quite big push of 24H events with probably [still not confirmed] changeable drivers in online mode within racing teams/clubs You can create.

 

[N_B]

What kind of shadow filtering (if any) does GT5 use? Shadow edges can be pretty horrific in some places.

 

[(((interference)))]

Yes it is, and overall, the biggest difference between the two, is that GT5P looks more clean and way more realistic than FM3, but I applaud your effort to try to convince us otherwise.

I always said that GT5 looked more realistic - my issue was with the inconsistency in quality of some of the tracks.

Forza primarily looks less realistic due to a questionable artistic choice that you would think could easily be fixed by using higher contrast lighting and less saturated visuals (easily seen if you play with the contrast/saturation of those Forza screens in photoshop) - and not so much some deficit in technology, as the tracks in Forza are more detailed than GT5 (just as the cars in GT5 are more detailed than Forza's).

Plus Forza 3's physics engine runs at 360hz with a brand new thermodynamic simulation tyre model, we don't know how GT5 compares. Forza 3 also runs at a consistent 60fps, in this entire sequence, it only dropped 2 frames:
http://www.eurogamer.net/tv_video.php?playlist_id=43072&size=hd

The framerate in GT5 at least, was not as consistent.

Also does the rewind feature in Forza 3 have any significant overhead?

 

[Neb]

What kind of shadow filtering (if any) does GT5 use? Shadow edges can be pretty horrific in some places.

Maybe low-res with low tap soft-shadow filtering for external view and internal PCF with no soft edges.

 

[MJP]

What kind of shadow filtering (if any) does GT5 use? Shadow edges can be pretty horrific in some places.

From the screenshots I've seen it looks like your basic 2x2 PCF that you get for "free" on RSX.

 

[JB9861]

With Prologue definately, but GT 5 is really pushing a genre forward with enormous B-spec mode [almost new game] , online customization, GTAnywhere and mixing many types of racing like SuperGT, WRC, Nascar, Karting in one games, course creator for random WRC events and personal tracks, and quite big push of 24H events with probably [still not confirmed] changeable drivers in online mode within racing teams/clubs You can create.

I'm just saying the 360 could probably match GT5 in things like amount of cars and transparencies, however the artists and priorities of those who create racing games for it hold the console back. I think even though some claim PD is at a disadvantage for arguably doing more it remains the console racing game to beat visually because of those factors. In any case, reviews probably will appreciate Turn 10's more even distribution of resources.

 

[(((interference)))]

I'm just saying the 360 could probably match GT5 in things like amount of cars and transparencies, however the artists and priorities of those who create racing games for it hold the console back. I think even though some claim PD is at a disadvantage for arguably doing more it remains the console racing game to beat visually because of those factors. In any case, reviews probably will appreciate Turn 10's more even distribution of resources.

Having gone back and played Forza 3, it definitely is not a good looking racer - better than F2 but way behind some of the other racing titles out there, the lighting choices makes it looks far too unrealistic for a sim, some of the tracks are quite poor as well.

I don't think Turn 10 will be able to make a racer than can visually compete with PD, Bizarre Creations on the other hand could (all the more why MS should buy them). PGR4 looks stunning even today, despite it's 2007 vintage, car models look fine (the gameplay models seem higher res than Forza's). The car lighting is also far closer to GTs than Forza's (Turn 10's lighting director needs to be fired)

And the environments, especially the city tracks are simply stunning - even compared to what I've seen of GT5:

http://images.gamersyde.com/image_project_gotham_racing_4-6334-1163_0003.jpg
http://images.gamersyde.com/image_project_gotham_racing_4-6254-1163_0003.jpg
http://images.gamersyde.com/image_project_gotham_racing_4-6254-1163_0005.jpg
http://images.gamersyde.com/image_project_gotham_racing_4-6334-1163_0007.jpg

Their recent work on Blur was also technically astounding, 720p 4xAA on 360 with 20 cars on screen and rendering a ridiculous amount of particles and transparencies to boot.

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/1/0/8/9/4/3/Blur3601080p_001.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/1/0/8/9/4/3/Blur360_001.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/1/0/8/8/0/0/360_006.jpg.jpg

 

[SteelOak]

And the environments, especially the city tracks are simply stunning - even compared to what I've seen of GT5:

why people keep posting stuff like this ?
GT5's environments are average at best,but this is 720p,60fps game with really great lighting ,highly detailed car models with great shaders,12 to 16 cars on track and all this running on 4-5 year old machine so it is acceptable I think.