The GT5 expectation thread (including preview titles)*

[mckmas8808]

As long as game angles keep showing us the same bland angles that show significant eye sores we will contininue hearing things like diminishing returns. And I think this is important because I don't care much for replays--I want the gaming experience to look like those photos

I agree 1,000%. The F1 demo for the PS3 has a few angles in gameplay that allows you to appreciate the cart models ALOT more than GTHD currenlty does.

Have you seen the camera angles for F1?



Another comparision.

 

[Acert93]

Another comparision.

PD absolutely nailed lighting for the cars in the demo shots you guys keep showing. As long as the world is equally in tune with the lighting levels on the car... absolutely drool worthly. Toss in equally impressive realworld assets (the hard part) and you are at the point of "who needs a PS4?"

 

[Darkon]

That comment is near sig worthy

I seriously almost can't tell the difference, especially since the backgrounds are blurred

You must take into account that the PGR3 garage cars are also fotorealistic

No, not even close at least not from what i have seen.

 

[patsu]

Another comparision.

mck, I agree GTHD is impressive but how come no jaggies in these shots ?

 

[Darkon]

mck, I agree GTHD is impressive but how come no jaggies in these shots ?

one is real, maybe

here are your jaggies

 

[patsu]

Ok, ok. Stop playing already.

 

[Graham]

Thats were compression and LOD come in

Yeah but you are limited in what you can compress that is still readable by the video card... And adding lod levels adds overhead too with more indices, and possibly vertices Unless of course you mean only loading a lower lod... Which I can't decide if it's cheating or not

 

[rounin]

Yeah but you are limited in what you can compress that is still readable by the video card... And adding lod levels adds overhead too with more indices, and possibly vertices Unless of course you mean only loading a lower lod... Which I can't decide if it's cheating or not

I think theres only "cheating" in the PC world. Console world, as long as it looks good its alright. As for overhead for LOD, I think I remember reading from a LAIR interview that the CELL should be good for that.

 

[inefficient]

I think theres only "cheating" in the PC world. Console world, as long as it looks good its alright. As for overhead for LOD, I think I remember reading from a LAIR interview that the CELL should be good for that.

The Lair dev (Julian) said that the Cell was running a visibilty algorithm on all the polys before before they were rendered by the GPU in order to counter overdraw. This allows them to make efficient use of the limited fillrate bandwidth and allows the game to run at 1080p now.

You might have read this as a memory storage saving techinque - because it does reduce the vertices you need to store in vram. But you still need to store the full model in main memory (XDR).

But maybe if you only stored compressed vertices in main memory, then had Cell decompress and send only visible verts to the GPU/VRAM on the fly, it could be a big win.

I have no emperical data on this, but it does seem to fit as something Cell would be very good at. A technique like this would allow games with insane polygon counts. Many cars on screen that look as good or better than the ones in GT:HD could be attainable.

 

["Nerve-Damage"]

I agree 1,000%. The F1 demo for the PS3 has a few angles in gameplay that allows you to appreciate the cart models ALOT more than GTHD currenlty does.

Have you seen the camera angles for F1?



Another comparision.

What really amazes me is that this is PD first generation PS3 title. Just imagine how the next two or three GT series games will look/sound on PS3.

 

[icecold1983]

The thing with those static 'behind the car' camera angle pictures posted on the forums is that you wont get a feel for the lighting. Which is hugely important imo. The dynamic lighting really sets it apart from what you might see in GT4. So seeing it in motion is definately key. The self shadowing for example in motion helps you see where those extra polys have been put to work when the car drifts around a corner or goes through a tunnel and the sun is shining on the car from a different angle. Things you notice that you wont see in regular screen shots. I'm not saying camera angles dont matter, because they do. It's just that theres a lot of factors when considering diminishing returns. And you wont get half of those factors from regular screenshots.

Look at this for example.

Not exactly a huge jump between them, from this sample they could be 2 different racing games on one system with the same cars and a similar environment just one not as good looking. But you see them in motion, at their respected resolutions and you will see a huge jump between them. Especially in the lighting, car detail, and texture work.

Now getting back to the camera angles. The extra detail/polygons can have very positive effect on gameplay and graphics you couldnt have before. The in-car camera view for example:

All those polygons you dont get in GT4 will be used in other places not seen before. Diminishing Returns? I just can't agree with that.

wow, is that dashboard pick in game? siiiiiiiiick

 

[Bad_Boy]

wow, is that dashboard pick in game? siiiiiiiiick

Not in GTHD Concept, but in GT5 it seems like a safe bet.

 

[London Geezer]

Seriously guys I really can't see the dimishing returns. :smile:

You just do not understand what "diminishing returns" is. You keep posting pics of GTHD telling us how "this is not diminishing returns"... That's just stupid.

By diminishing returns we mean that the difference between generations (or games) gets smaller each time.

From PS1 to PS2, the difference was huge. From PS2 to PS3 the difference is big, but as PS2 already got to near-photorealism at certain times, the difference with the almost-photoreal GTHD is smaller than it was from PS1 to PS2.

Now the next step is GT on PS4. Now that GTHD and GT5 will look real - and some pics you posted show this as it's hard to tell which one is the game and which one is real - the difference between PS3 and PS4 will be even smaller, simply because you can't get more "real" than reality. Sure, you can add more things - more cars, more things and people around the tracks - but the difference between the two generations will be even smaller in our eyes than the difference between PS2 and PS3.

Now please stop posting pics of GTHD and "reality" to say that "this is not diminishing returns" cause it's just stupid. You need pics from GT on PS1, GT on PS2 and GT on PS3 to show if we're getting to diminishing returns or not - which we ARE, whatever you chose to believe.

I know it just doesn't make you feel good that you're spending more and more money on a console which gives you less of a jump than the generation before it, but really, this is getting ridiculous now.

 

[inefficient]

I will say what you are all thinking

This thread is showing diminishing returns.

 

[London Geezer]

This thread is showing diminishing returns.

Diminishing returns in intelligence, for sure. With each generation of consoles, people's brain power produces less and less good results compared to the generation before.

 

[Capeta]

Haha you guys are funny, but very good point nonetheless.

The Lair dev (Julian) said that the Cell was running a visibilty algorithm on all the polys before before they were rendered by the GPU in order to counter overdraw. This allows them to make efficient use of the limited fillrate bandwidth and allows the game to run at 1080p now.

You might have read this as a memory storage saving techinque - because it does reduce the vertices you need to store in vram. But you still need to store the full model in main memory (XDR).

But maybe if you only stored compressed vertices in main memory, then had Cell decompress and send only visible verts to the GPU/VRAM on the fly, it could be a big win.

Isn't this kind of stuff being handled by things like HyperZ in the GPU? Does RSX support something similar? If it does why is it being done on CELL? Is this what people call deferred rendering?

I dare say this behind the car screenshot looks more photoreal than the behind car GTHD shot. Granted it's running at 30fps and at a lower native resolution, but still.

http://images.elotrolado.net/news2/290906212549_2big.jpg

http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=14ls8.jpg

 

[Nesh]

None of them is photorealistic in these screenshots. But I think a replay comparison would have been better on both

 

[Shifty Geezer]

All those polygons you dont get in GT4 will be used in other places not seen before. Diminishing Returns? I just can't agree with that.

Diminishing Returns probably needs it's own thread, it keeps cropping up at the moment!

A problem with the argument is how you measure it. Let's say from PS1 to PS2, console power increased 10 x and the visual results were a 10x improvement. Then if PS2 > PS3 is a 10x power improvement, and visual improvement is 9x, it's diminishing returns which no-one will notice in screenshots. Diminishing returns could be plotted out in a graph of power versus visual quality, and the result would look something like a gamma curve, y=x^n. Diminishing returns exists. The relevance here is how much influence it bares on this generation and the next generation. I think pretty much everyone will agree there's loads of room for improvement and we haven't hit any kind of ceiling yet. How much room to grow in the visuals is up for debate though. Which is more appropriate discussion in the future consoles thread I think.

 

[London Geezer]

Diminishing returns is not about processing power, it's about how the difference in processing power does not equal to the same difference in what our eyes see. It's about a 10x processing power increase not being able to give us the same "jump" in visual quality as the 10x processing power increase two generations ago.

It's not like we haven't discussed this enough!

 

[PARANOiA]

Now please stop posting pics of GTHD and "reality" to say that "this is not diminishing returns" cause it's just stupid. You need pics from GT on PS1, GT on PS2 and GT on PS3 to show if we're getting to diminishing returns or not - which we ARE, whatever you chose to believe.

I know it just doesn't make you feel good that you're spending more and more money on a console which gives you less of a jump than the generation before it, but really, this is getting ridiculous now.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If the game is so great, go play it instead of posting dozens of screendumps into the thread The game looks pretty, we get it! Now add to the discussion regarding why you don't believe this is a smaller jump than PS1 to PS2.

In all seriousness, though, the biggest console jump we had was from the SNES to PSX/PS1. I remember falling off my chair seeing Ridge Racer and Toshinden for the first time. Playing my 360 today makes me think most games look like HD Ninja Gaiden - while pretty, not a huge leap just yet.

I am liking the fact that PGR4 and Forza2 has some decent competition NOW, rather than in 2008+, even if it's only time trial races. The visual bar has been set, so let's see if it can be broken.

Why you're at it Polyphony, where the hell is GT-PSP?? Please don't tell me you took devs of that for this free demo