The Racing Games Comparison Thread (GT5 & FM3) *spawn
- Thread starter swaaye
- Start date
- Status
1920*1080= 2.073.600 pixels on screen. Rendering with 128 bit per pixel would mean that the image is (*128=) 265.420.800 bits, (/ 8 =) 33.177.600 Bytes, (/ 1024= ) 32.400 kiloByte.
32,4 MegaByte is the framebuffer with AA.
FSAA x2 would mean 64,8 MegaByte framebuffer. x4 would total 129,6 MegaByte framebuffer.
Now I don't know if the framebuffer is fixed, but 64,8 MB would seem like a lot, regardless of what's on screen, this is only the framebuffer for the pixels.
Greetings,
E2K
32,4 MegaByte is the framebuffer with AA.
FSAA x2 would mean 64,8 MegaByte framebuffer. x4 would total 129,6 MegaByte framebuffer.
Now I don't know if the framebuffer is fixed, but 64,8 MB would seem like a lot, regardless of what's on screen, this is only the framebuffer for the pixels.
Do you have a difficult time believing, or a difficult time understanding it's memory?
Greetings,
E2K
RSX doesn't suppose MSAA with FP16 rendertargets is what I meant. It's not a question of memory... it was a question of hardware support. I was comparing a 32bpp format to 64bpp (FP16) hence why memory seems somewhat unlikely to be a culprit, especially for a showcase room. A 720p 4x buffer is slightly less in size than a 1080p 2x buffer. That's it.
Your calculations are for FP32 by the way, which no one will be using for a framebuffer, certainly not this generation.
Your calculations are for FP32 by the way, which no one will be using for a framebuffer, certainly not this generation.
I thought FC2 had it as the config file has "FP32=1" presumably in DX10.1 mode. IIRC I'll check it later.
EDIT: Checked and it says "HdrFP32="1""
Last edited by a moderator:
There is an FP32 texture format that gets recommended for shadowmapping (R32F, single component - 360 supports this as well). But yeah, I'd be surprised and horrified because of how dog slow it is if they're using 128bpp rendering.
It might be 128bpp, because it runs at less than 25 fps, at least in GT5p. And like people pointed out, it has only been 2 car onscreen so far.
Where can we get some confirmation on this?
Can you see the difference between 64 and 128 bits per pixel?
(ofcourse in game it's at a lower depth)
one car, sorry
But I understand that it uses a lot of power to render in this mode
Where can we get some confirmation on this?
Can you see the difference between 64 and 128 bits per pixel?
(ofcourse in game it's at a lower depth)
one car, sorry
But I understand that it uses a lot of power to render in this mode
Betanumerical
Veteran
It might be 128bpp, because it runs at less than 25 fps, at least in GT5p. And like people pointed out, it has only been 2 car onscreen so far.
Where can we get some confirmation on this?
Can you see the difference between 64 and 128 bits per pixel?
(ofcourse in game it's at a lower depth)
one car, sorry
But I understand that it uses a lot of power to render in this mode
Don't make me hit you with the clue-by-four son.
Crazy... how's performance
To be fair, I was speaking within the context of the PS3/console generation. Please excuse this post if I messed the quote up by I'm posting from my BlackBerry.
I can't for the life of me remember if GT5 has the ability to free look in the cockpit view from what I remember it was only 4 static views not the dynamic free look like PGR 3&4 have. I don't believe I've ever seen FM3 display a rear cockpit view, but I do think it allows you to move the camera on any focal point in the cockpit like glove box side view mirrors etc.
Also 1 more question does this present any challenges to developers to allow players the ability to look at anything the player wants or is it just the same difficulty as the static cockpits. I myself find the static cockpits boring and really do give the immersion that the cockpit view is trying achieve.
It's fine, no problem.
I think even most die-hard GT fans don't know that this is possible, because it's not mapped to the controller by default. You have to customize the controllers for it. If you do that then you'll see that you can for instance set left view/right view to the right analog stick (or any other button), and then hey presto! Those that use a wheel are a bit more likely to know because it's mapped on the d-pad of their wheels by default. Unfortunately the buttons on most Logitech wheels (at least the one's I've owned) are always only digital, so you can't be very precise.
It's not as free as in PGR though - you can only look 180 degrees sideways, no up or down movement. Also, the sensitivity is way too high - you really have to be very precise if you want to make small movements, which makes it not very useful. I'm really hoping we can map it to the sixaxis in the final version. Although there is a rear cockpit view, I didn't seem to be able to move left/right in that view though.
I just made this, specially for you.
The London one by the way shows some great HDR effects (no, that's not my camera's contrast adjusting
).Regarding Forza 3, I recently actually saw a video in which you could see the rear of a car also in cockpit view, so it does seem to be in there.
It does present some challenges, but generally I don't think it should matter all that much, since everything is rendered in 3D now anyway, including the cockpits / full interiors. These are even visible from outside through the windows.
And just a reminder: people, this shot is in-game, took it a few days ago. Sure, it's off-screen, but it looks better in real-life, not worse.
And this is a 'pit' shot:
There is also a support for a head tracking via Ps-eye.
Should be very nice feature especially in tight races.
That is personal opinion, but I am sure that a lot of neutral people, if not all, will agree on that.
Even if Gt5 would be 1:1 the same as GT5p, it IMO would already beat everything forza has shown, including the photomode shots (which look very flat and seem to lack a lot of contrast, not to mention all the colors are off) IMO
But when you compare forza 2 to 3, it's almost like comparing ridge racer 5 to GT3!
The devs really made a lot of progress there.
There are elements of GT5 that look better then FM3 for sure, and there are elements of FM3 that look better then GT5 for sure..
It does seem that PD have concentrated very much on certain aspects of the cars that give an instant 'wow'.. but it's not long before you start noticing exactly where they had to cut corners.
I find FM3 the opposite, the immediate 'wow' factor isn't quite the same, you see some obvious deficiencies much easier, but when you start looking you can see the fidelity doesn't drop as much in other areas..
As I've said before, the highs of GT5 (graphically) are higher then FM3, but it's lows are most certainly lower..
I find it therefore impossible to declare either an obvious 'winner'..
And then you have the rest of the game, which we don't really know anything about, but I see no huge complaints about either, slightly different approaches, but no doubt equally satisfying if either floats your boat.
[edit]Actually I thought I'd list the good/bad of each's graphics as I see it (from a non technical point of view)
GT5
+ More realistic reflections
+ Incredible Headlamp/Taillight rendering
+ Cars move realisitically on suspension
+ Pitstops and off-track environments are modelled for atmosphere
- Very low res reflections in roof view (from Demo)
- Odd shadow effect (looks all bitty/weird)
- Rear view mirror shows no smoke/tyre marks and looks a little sparse.
- No tyre marks left on track
FM3
+ Good Detail in rear view mirror (Smoke/tyre marks/full detail)
+ most reflections (especially hood view) are high res/quality
+ Tyre Marks etc are left on track
+ User Livery
- Headlamps/Tail lamps don't look realistic at times
- Car's paint does not look quite photo-realistic
The things I see tit-for-tat
- 1080p 2AA seems to exhibit no discernible improvement over 720p 4xAA, the most obvious being the presence of jaggies and that even at 1080p the textures/shadows/reflections aren't taking advantage of the higher resolution, so since both games offer 720p 4xMSAA (by the looks of things), then I'd say they are roughly on parity
- 1000 cars vs 400 cars with extensive modification
- Flapping doors/bonnets on some cars vs largely just deformation and the odd bumper on all cars.
- Interior views seem roughly comparable, no 'rear view' in FM3, some low rent shadows and textures in GT5
That's about it from me graphically, there are similar lists on physics, AI, gameplay etc, but I can't come to declaring either significantly better then the other on balance at this point.
It does seem that PD have concentrated very much on certain aspects of the cars that give an instant 'wow'.. but it's not long before you start noticing exactly where they had to cut corners.
I find FM3 the opposite, the immediate 'wow' factor isn't quite the same, you see some obvious deficiencies much easier, but when you start looking you can see the fidelity doesn't drop as much in other areas..
As I've said before, the highs of GT5 (graphically) are higher then FM3, but it's lows are most certainly lower..
I find it therefore impossible to declare either an obvious 'winner'..
And then you have the rest of the game, which we don't really know anything about, but I see no huge complaints about either, slightly different approaches, but no doubt equally satisfying if either floats your boat.
[edit]Actually I thought I'd list the good/bad of each's graphics as I see it (from a non technical point of view)
GT5
+ More realistic reflections
+ Incredible Headlamp/Taillight rendering
+ Cars move realisitically on suspension
+ Pitstops and off-track environments are modelled for atmosphere
- Very low res reflections in roof view (from Demo)
- Odd shadow effect (looks all bitty/weird)
- Rear view mirror shows no smoke/tyre marks and looks a little sparse.
- No tyre marks left on track
FM3
+ Good Detail in rear view mirror (Smoke/tyre marks/full detail)
+ most reflections (especially hood view) are high res/quality
+ Tyre Marks etc are left on track
+ User Livery
- Headlamps/Tail lamps don't look realistic at times
- Car's paint does not look quite photo-realistic
The things I see tit-for-tat
- 1080p 2AA seems to exhibit no discernible improvement over 720p 4xAA, the most obvious being the presence of jaggies and that even at 1080p the textures/shadows/reflections aren't taking advantage of the higher resolution, so since both games offer 720p 4xMSAA (by the looks of things), then I'd say they are roughly on parity
- 1000 cars vs 400 cars with extensive modification
- Flapping doors/bonnets on some cars vs largely just deformation and the odd bumper on all cars.
- Interior views seem roughly comparable, no 'rear view' in FM3, some low rent shadows and textures in GT5
That's about it from me graphically, there are similar lists on physics, AI, gameplay etc, but I can't come to declaring either significantly better then the other on balance at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
I am sorry that here i must disagree with you my friend. When I look closely at Forza 3 cars I see real shortcuts. Biggest shortcuts is headlights. Inside headlights of Forza 3 cars is not good, like unshaded polygons. GT5 headlights, a small detail that no one will notice in the game, is usually (not always) very beautiful.
Also lighting of car body is not quite right for Forza 3. It does not look like real HDR because lighting looks like big white smear (which is why it looks like plastic I think) without good detailed specular. GT5 has nice specular look.
Interior the difference is even more. Forza 3 interior materials is often looking like all plastic. Maybe for final release this will be different since it is in development still
GT5 interior has problems also. For example, metal steering wheel will have reflections of backside scenery and sky. That is incorrect. Because of the camera angle there must only be reflection of the driver's helmet and car ceiling. Also (only sometimes) one or two parts (like shift knob or shifter base) look like unshaded polygons But other than that the materials and lighting of GT5 interior is really great. Even shadows is pretty good.
I have no PS3 or Forza 3, I like cool technology, not companies for which I have no stock. I feel GT5 has much nicer graphics. To me Forza 3 is much better than Forza 2 but still the lighting is not realistic. The rocks in the Forza 3 environment is also looking fake maybe because of too much color saturation and not enough dynamic lighting making it look like cartoons.
I think both PD and Turn10 made big mistakes. Both should make 480P/60 games with extra shaders and textures. I saw Transformers on 480P DVD and Optimus Prime looks like a real robot. He was not 1080P. I don't think resolution makes it more real, only more clear, but in racing games 1) you do not need large draw-distances 2) everything has motion blur anyway so extra detail from resolution is a waste of graphics powers.
Also lighting of car body is not quite right for Forza 3. It does not look like real HDR because lighting looks like big white smear (which is why it looks like plastic I think) without good detailed specular. GT5 has nice specular look.
Interior the difference is even more. Forza 3 interior materials is often looking like all plastic. Maybe for final release this will be different since it is in development still
GT5 interior has problems also. For example, metal steering wheel will have reflections of backside scenery and sky. That is incorrect. Because of the camera angle there must only be reflection of the driver's helmet and car ceiling. Also (only sometimes) one or two parts (like shift knob or shifter base) look like unshaded polygons But other than that the materials and lighting of GT5 interior is really great. Even shadows is pretty good.
I have no PS3 or Forza 3, I like cool technology, not companies for which I have no stock. I feel GT5 has much nicer graphics. To me Forza 3 is much better than Forza 2 but still the lighting is not realistic. The rocks in the Forza 3 environment is also looking fake maybe because of too much color saturation and not enough dynamic lighting making it look like cartoons.
I think both PD and Turn10 made big mistakes. Both should make 480P/60 games with extra shaders and textures. I saw Transformers on 480P DVD and Optimus Prime looks like a real robot. He was not 1080P. I don't think resolution makes it more real, only more clear, but in racing games 1) you do not need large draw-distances 2) everything has motion blur anyway so extra detail from resolution is a waste of graphics powers.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
