60fps (and 1080p to some extent) limit GT5

[Griffith500]

Interesting line of thinking but the difference is that a digital audio signal is a series of samples that when put together represent the waveform, for video information each pixel is told to emit or let pass (depending on type of display) light of particular frequencies so the video signal has nothing to do with generating the waveform of the light, if you want to think in audio terms then it's more like those old pianos with the paper rolls where a hole in the paper causes a key to be played.

That too!
The piano roll is a good analogy to a discrete element display.

So, vision (and video in general) is much more complex than hearing and audio in general. I find it fascinating, then, that we are more used to analysing what we can see, and being able to explain odd effects in our vision than we are with our hearing.

EDIT: I probably should have mentioned the difference between the idea of "frequencies we can hear", and of "the threshold between discrete sounds that we no longer discern as separate", which is heavily dependent on the nature of the sounds. That is probably a better comparison, but only really compares to the "at what point do streams of static images appear to be in motion smoothly".
Anyway, I once tested myself with sequential, dry (no reverb) gunshot sounds and I could discern pairs down to 6 milliseconds apart (I knew they were separate, though.) That corresponds to about 167 Hz. If I didn't know they were separate, that figure may have been as low as 90 Hz (11 ms.)
Had the sound been different (longer, for example) or of a different timbre / frequency content (and how that content evolved over its length) then the results would be very different, surely.

How does that help us with the frame-rate issue? It doesn't, save for the idea that comparing frame-rates of different materials / media is pointless, as has already been stated.

 

[CoolColJ]

To the OP -

One area that really suffers from a lower framerate are the windshield wipers in the 30fps GT5 replays.
I'm guessing it's because they don't have motion blur on them.
The wipers move rapidly and look really choppy on the replays vs in gameplay

see 11:13

 

[Flerbizky]

This thread reminds me of a thread on a motorcycle board years ago wherein a poster tried to establish that shaft drive bikes, through some law of physics, were physically incapable of a wheelie. That thread went on forever. People posted pictures of shafties pulling a wheelie and there were cries of "PHOTOSHOPPED!!!" People posted personal accounts of actually pulling a wheelie on a shaftie. It became a running gag. This thread is like that, only less funny.

OT. We used that extensively back in the days at the uk.rec.motorcycles group. One guy (noob) complaining he couldn't wheelie his ZX6R, whereto people explained him "It's because it's a shaftie". Poor guy responding "But it has a chain". Group answer, "You must be referring to the safety retainer chain"..

He was never heard from again (-:

 

[Griffith500]

To the OP -

One area that really suffers from a lower framerate are the windshield wipers in the 30fps GT5 replays.
I'm guessing it's because they don't have motion blur on them.
The wipers move rapidly and look really choppy on the replays vs in gameplay

see 11:13
vid

They do that in cockpit view, too (60 fps), which I can only assume means the animation itself is low-res, in some way - a bit like the slow-motion scenes in the Assassin's Creed Brotherhood trailers; the characters look ridiculously jerky! But they're not supposed to be seen that slow, I guess...

 

[JBturbo]

To the OP -

One area that really suffers from a lower framerate are the windshield wipers in the 30fps GT5 replays.
I'm guessing it's because they don't have motion blur on them.
The wipers move rapidly and look really choppy on the replays vs in gameplay

see 11:13

The wiper animation is just poor to start with. There aren't nearly enough frames in there (I mean animation frames, not fps), given that you can actually count them throughout the cycle.

@ VRMak, yes of course that's true, you can selectively focus if you fasten your gaze, but how many times are you doing this in racing? You're either staring at the back of another car (which does not move relatively fast enough to justify the higher FPS) or glancing at an apex etc for a second. Other than that your view is significantly in the distance.

There isn't really a scenario in the game where fast moving objects aren't in the periphery of your vision, which is where the eye applies the most natural motion blur anyway.

 

[KilzoneStrife]

Im loving this thread.

 

[JBturbo]

How do you see this? Something like 360 different textures for the 360 degrees your texture could be moving in? -> needing 360 times the vid mem for textures...

Somebody know of games trying to do this (incorporating real!! motion blur)?

Many apply motion blur but do so excessively - i.e. GTA 4 when the background turns into mush at speed.

As for the textures, everything in game has a texture. You just introduce conditional textures which replace them. It doesn't multiply your video memory requirements by much at all. After all, it's still showing limited textures.

 

[CoolColJ]

They do that in cockpit view, too (60 fps), which I can only assume means the animation itself is low-res, in some way - a bit like the slow-motion scenes in the Assassin's Creed Brotherhood trailers; the characters look ridiculously jerky! But they're not supposed to be seen that slow, I guess...

I can't say I notice it in cockpit, when I first watched a replay of the wipers I was shocked at how choppy it looked. It's much smoother than that during gameplay

Remeber Youtube is 30fps, when I watch my 60fps originals I can see how choppy 30fps is

 

[JBturbo]

I can't say I notice it in cockpit, when I first watched a replay of the wipers I was shocked at how choppy it looked. It's much smoother than that during gameplay

It looks better from the cockpit but not vastly so.

I was disappointed by the wiper animations. It's almost like they aren't solid.

But that choppiness definately isn't caused by 30fps. If those wipers were moving at 30fps there would be 30 frames of animation per second. I (and you) can count the frames of animation in that replay.

Plus don't forget that youtube can compress horribly.

 

[Griffith500]

The wiper animation is just poor to start with. There aren't nearly enough frames in there (I mean animation frames, not fps), given that you can actually count them throughout the cycle.

@ VRMak, yes of course that's true, you can selectively focus if you fasten your gaze, but how many times are you doing this in racing? You're either staring at the back of another car (which does not move relatively fast enough to justify the higher FPS) or glancing at an apex etc for a second. Other than that your view is significantly in the distance.

There isn't really a scenario in the game where fast moving objects aren't in the periphery of your vision, which is where the eye applies the most natural motion blur anyway.

That isn't the issue. It's being able to see the yaw rate and relative travel of your car versus other cars and the circuit, as well as spotting braking points, clipping points and exit points all at the same time. That's why the frame rate needs to be so "high" (60 fps is relatively low, as we've seen already) for racing sims, to allow for that fine-grained monitoring that is made ever more important by missing input from other senses. For casual gamers it's probably not an issue, but for those who take hot-lapping and racing in general very seriously, it makes all the difference.

EDIT: @ CoolColJ, that Cobra is smooth, but it's also a "simple" motion. Maybe it depends on the car and the mechanisms behind the wiper's movement? I've only ever observed (/ noticed) the wipers in-race, so I can't compare to the replays other than what you've posted.

 

[KilzoneStrife]

I havnt read through every page, but can someone tell me, do you think if GT5 was at 720p or even at 600p and then upscaled to 720p or 1080p the overall framerate would be able to remain at a constant 60fps?

 

[JBturbo]

I havnt read through every page, but can someone tell me, do you think if GT5 was at 720p or even at 600p and then upscaled to 720p or 1080p the overall framerate would be able to remain at a constant 60fps?

I'm a bit confused by what you mean.

GT5 is at 720p, and is half arsed 1080p, I.e. there are 1080 horizontal lines scanning progressively, but it is not in the correct format for the widely accepted definition of 1080p (in a ratio of 16:9).

It doesn't hold 60fps anyway. It just can't - put 16 premiums in the rain, online, on a premium circuit at the first corner and watch the FPS fall. It still does well, but not 60.

 

[Le Mans 88]

If you think 30fps is ok for a racing game, go try F1 2010 and see how horrible it is at high speed. I am glad 60fps is their priority, make the motion so much more fluid. Although I think they should stay at 720P so other things like shadow can be render better.

Totally agree, at high speed F1 2010 looks like a slide show.

I also agree 1080p isn't neccessary although to my eyes at least frame rate stutters and tearing appear to be reduced since the updates.

 

[JBturbo]

That isn't the issue. It's being able to see the yaw rate and relative travel of your car versus other cars and the circuit, as well as spotting braking points, clipping points and exit points all at the same time. That's why the frame rate needs to be so "high" (60 fps is relatively low, as we've seen already) for racing sims, to allow for that fine-grained monitoring that is made ever more important by missing input from other senses. For casual gamers it's probably not an issue, but for those who take hot-lapping and racing in general very seriously, it makes all the difference.

EDIT: @ CoolColJ, that Cobra is smooth, but it's also a "simple" motion. Maybe it depends on the car and the mechanisms behind the wiper's movement? I've only ever observed (/ noticed) the wipers in-race, so I can't compare to the replays other than what you've posted.

It is the issue though. You catch the braking points with your periphery, as you do with your apex's etc. You don't stare at a braking point. You momentarily glance.

What you're effectively saying is that if you took GT5 and put an external FPS limiter on it (to 30fps) then you'd lap slower? Surely you don't think that?

@CoolColJ I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. If you're saying that in the video it's smooth, then you're saying it's smooth at 30fps.

At least most agree that '1080p' is unneccessary, given that the price you pay is significantly less anti-aliasing. Jaggy edges at high resolutions just look jaggier.

 

[KilzoneStrife]

I'm a bit confused by what you mean.

GT5 is at 720p, and is half arsed 1080p, I.e. there are 1080 horizontal lines scanning progressively, but it is not in the correct format for the widely accepted definition of 1080p (in a ratio of 16:9).

It doesn't hold 60fps anyway. It just can't - put 16 premiums in the rain, online, on a premium circuit at the first corner and watch the FPS fall. It still does well, but not 60.

I thought GT5 runs native 1080p? Then at lower res for 3D which it then upscales to a higher res. Much like Killzone 3. I meant, if native resolution was dropped to say 720p or even 600p like Call Of Duty Black Ops but then upscaled it. Im no programmer, designer etc, but doesnt the PS3 have a scaler chip to do exactly that? From what I gather, it needs 60fps, not the higher res. I doubt Forza 3 maintains 720p anyway.

 

[Griffith500]

It is the issue though. You catch the braking points with your periphery, as you do with your apex's etc. You don't stare at a braking point. You momentarily glance.

What you're effectively saying is that if you took GT5 and put an external FPS limiter on it (to 30fps) then you'd lap slower? Surely you don't think that?

@CoolColJ I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. If you're saying that in the video it's smooth, then you're saying it's smooth at 30fps.

At least most agree that '1080p' is unneccessary, given that the price you pay is significantly less anti-aliasing. Jaggy edges at high resolutions just look jaggier.

You missed the point of my post. I was saying that a high framerate is not required just so that I can see my braking point in my peripheral vision (i.e. once it's already passed!) but rather so that I can detect the miniscule changes in the car's orientation (yaw), attitude (pitch and roll) and acceleration (fore / aft, left / right, up / down). I look ahead to the various parts of the circuit (or individual corner) and memorise what's coming, so that I can concentrate on controlling the car against the feedback mechanisms present (my vision, primarily, since I'm not actually in the car.)

I'm glad that you don't personally need 60 fps, but I notice a significant increase in my pace and consistency by going from 36 fps to 60 fps in GPL, and I enjoy a similar level of consistency in GT5 while hotlapping (i.e. more-or-less constant frame rate) at 720p. I can cope with 30 fps (though switching modes is very jarring in GT5) but I prefer the feel of 60 fps.

 

[Stonemonkey]

I'm not saying for certain but it's possible that the animation of the wipers is seperate from the physics engine and only updated with the graphics update so that whatever that has to be done to clear the water drops on the windscreen as the wipers move and create the trails of other water drops only has to be done once per frame.

Some sort of delta timing could be used to deal with frame drops or differing framerates between race and replay to try and keep the animation at a constant speed but that can still result in a bit of choppiness.

 

[JBturbo]

I thought GT5 runs native 1080p? Then at lower res for 3D which it then upscales to a higher res. Much like Killzone 3. I meant, if native resolution was dropped to say 720p or even 600p like Call Of Duty Black Ops but then upscaled it. Im no programmer, designer etc, but doesnt the PS3 have a scaler chip to do exactly that? From what I gather, it needs 60fps, not the higher res. I doubt Forza 3 maintains 720p anyway.

Well scaling is a cop-out, and whilst it might make things look a bit better than just resizing it's still not a patch on the native resolution.

GT5 definitely doesn't run 1080p natively, at least not by any industry definition whatsoever. It doesn't run 'natively' in 1920 x 1080, which is the true standard.

There is an inherent problem in GT5 where most of the background textures (and lots of the foreground textures) are relatively low-resolution. At least certainly not detailed enough to warrant 1080p.

 

[KilzoneStrife]

Well scaling is a cop-out, and whilst it might make things look a bit better than just resizing it's still not a patch on the native resolution.

GT5 definitely doesn't run 1080p natively, at least not by any industry definition whatsoever. It doesn't run 'natively' in 1920 x 1080, which is the true standard.

There is an inherent problem in GT5 where most of the background textures (and lots of the foreground textures) are relatively low-resolution. At least certainly not detailed enough to warrant 1080p.

Exactly, Im shocked at things I first saw as glitches, really are resolution issues. Case in point, the shadows. Im away on holiday at the moment, so no full HD t.v. Ive brought the ps3 along as Ive expected it to rain on some days, rendering the beach useless. Anyways, Ive got my ps3 set up via component cables and I tried GT5 last night on the 80 odd cm t.v in my room. Its a regular t.v. Well, there is pretty much no shadow problems. Tracks like Trial Mountain ( that look mostly ported from GT4, the appauling tunnel textures, foliage textures of the trees and general track scenary leads me to believe this) look far better. In general.. The game looks more polished in on this SDTV.

 

[petalpusher6]

Shadow maps have their own resolutions, it's a specific buffer. What photo mode does is sampling x times every buffer of the game engine, and of course the main rendering resolution. There s not only one resolution in a game.
2D elements like foliage or cable are a different problem, even if you put 16xMSAA in the game they would still look the same. The only solution is going up on main rendering resolution, that's why in photo mode they look clean perfect (in two digits million pixels..)
Another way to tackle this is to actually make all theses elements in 3D, even if it's tesselation and micro poly. That will be for next generation for sure.

 

[I6-4-eva]

Funny thread. I'm more of a PC gamer and this discussion comes up a lot. Instead of the 30vs60 fps argument it's the 60fps side vs what's the point you cant see anything higher side.

I'll tell you one thing though playing the dirt 2 demo on my ps3 and then on my PC which runs at a solid 60fps+vsync enabled made such a huge difference in the "driving experience". I bought the game for the PC instead.

 

[Devedander]

I thought GT5 runs native 1080p? Then at lower res for 3D which it then upscales to a higher res. Much like Killzone 3. I meant, if native resolution was dropped to say 720p or even 600p like Call Of Duty Black Ops but then upscaled it. Im no programmer, designer etc, but doesnt the PS3 have a scaler chip to do exactly that? From what I gather, it needs 60fps, not the higher res. I doubt Forza 3 maintains 720p anyway.

GT5 runs native 1280x1080 at highest resolution (native 720p when set to that).

FM3 maintains a rock solid 60FPS at 720p consistently. It's one of the things T10 set as a high priority to ensure the proper feeling while racing.

I havnt read through every page, but can someone tell me, do you think if GT5 was at 720p or even at 600p and then upscaled to 720p or 1080p the overall framerate would be able to remain at a constant 60fps?

It's more complicated than that. At 720 GT5 runs with 4x MSAA and at 1080 it runs at 2x QAA.

Antialiasing takes a lot of work and hits framerate so it depends on what they do besides just a framerate change. Also depends on whether they turn Vsync on (which currently GT5 does not have and is the reason for all the tearing).

I would think with no AA GT5 could potentially be rock solid 60FPS at 720p... maybe.

There is an inherent problem in GT5 where most of the background textures (and lots of the foreground textures) are relatively low-resolution. At least certainly not detailed enough to warrant 1080p.

Texture detail really has nothing to do with rendeirng resolution. no matter how low the texture, the geometry of the 3D models (and edges) will always show resolution issues.

What you're effectively saying is that if you took GT5 and put an external FPS limiter on it (to 30fps) then you'd lap slower? Surely you don't think that?

Actually yes... how much slower, hard to tell, but it does have an effect. Load up Forza on Xbox, then load up Forza 2 on a 360. Play both... you can feel the a definite difference in control response (not just physics engine changes).

In a twitchy FP it's much more pronounced but the same effect. Lower FPS almost makes your mouse feel like it's got some kind of lag. Your mind makes up for it by focusing harder and predicting what this lag will be like, but it's not the same for sure.

 

[HKS racer]

Gran Turismo will never be 30fps, it's their mentality they don't want 30fps. No way. The problem is Ps3 isn't strong enough to completely support GT5's engine. Kazunori told us some months ago: "GT5 is a Play Station 4 game adapted to the Ps3 hardware". This is what. That's why we have ugly shadows, because Ps3 memory was over. Maybe GT5 should be arranged with GT5 Prologue graphics. That was the limit, Ps3 can't handle more than that. Anyway shadows are not everything, at least to me, GT5 still rock.

 

[Devedander]

Gran Turismo will never be 30fps, it's their mentality they don't want 30fps. No way. The problem is Ps3 isn't strong enough to completely support GT5's engine. Kazunori told us some months ago: "GT5 is a Play Station 4 game adapted to the Ps3 hardware". This is what. That's why we have ugly shadows, because Ps3 memory was over. Maybe GT5 should be arranged with GT5 Prologue graphics. That was the limit, Ps3 can't handle more than that. Anyway shadows are not everything, at least to me, GT5 still rock.

I am pretty sure what he said was that premium cars might be better suited for PS4 and he said it half jokingly and half braggingly.

Either way, it's a pretty horrible decision to make a game require more processing power than is available... it's not like they didn't know what they were dealing with.

And sadly, sometimes GT5 actually drops below 30FPS.

 

[petalpusher6]

Cause they planned their assets creation on 2 generations (at least). You can't create that amount of content every generation, it's not even human to do it with that level of detail, even if they had one hundred people just dedicted to it.
The polycount is not the reason you get a drop on fps on this game anyway. This is a bandwith issue, in some heavy scenario, most of the time it's 50-60fps, there is no lock on the fps, sometimes it goes up to 100-120fps.

 

[Devedander]

Cause they planned their assets creation on 2 generations (at least). You can't create that amount of content every generation, it's not even human to do it with that level of detail,
even if they had one hundred people dedicted to it.

Well some can.

And beyond the point, that' why you scale back your assets to fit the hardware you have available.

The polycount is not the reason you get a drop on fps on this game anyway. This is a bandwith issue.

What?

 

[NeuroFiZT]

@JBTurbo et al:

What we need is a locked 30fps at 720p to free up some resources, but that means we'll have to selectively blur things..... which is unrealistic (since the eye-brain 'applies motion blur' dynamically depending on what you're looking at). So then, 60fps with eye-brain blur is better, UNLESS......

The psEYE can be used to discern what you're looking at, and then motion blur is applied peripherally around that.... That would be quite cool. Of course, that will consume it's own CPU resources....... so wouldn't solve the problem really..... still cool idea.

 

[HKS racer]

Maybe they can create with Sony something like an external graphic card to increase the calculating power of the actual Ps3 and free up some resources. I'm sure this will never happen but if they do it lot, of people will buy that.

 

[petalpusher6]

Well some can.

And beyond the point, that' why you scale back your assets to fit the hardware you have available.



What?

No other cars have that level of detail in other sim. Creating that kind of model is something exponential, compare to Forza models for example. It took 5 years too to get the cockpit view finally and they are nowhere near gt models, not only on the polycount, but material shaders in the interior as well. T10 subcontract that work in India by the way.
Nfs Shift models are decent, specially on the shaders part but there s only around 60 cars.
Creating +200 premium GT models is just another world..You can't throw that away every 5 years and start again from scratch. So you have to think 10 years at least.
PD has also scale back models between ingame/photo mode and photo travel. In travel mode you get some additional details. This is the level we can expect for GT on PS4, and they are already here. That's the point.

 

[Devedander]

No other cars have that level of detail in other sim. Creating that kind of model is something exponential, compare to Forza models for example. It took 5 years too to get the cockpit view finally and they are nowhere near gt models, not only on the polycount, but material shaders in the interior as well. T10 subcontract that work in India by the way.
Nfs Shift models are decent, specially on the shaders part but there s only around 60 cars.
Creating +200 premium GT models is just another world..You can't throw that away every 5 years and start again from scratch. So you have to think 10 years at least.

What does outsourcing the work to India have to do with anything as long as it gets done?

True the car model detail is high but considering how fast they drop to lower LoD I personally give it much less weight (although for photomode quite nice).

Again though, is it worth bragging rights that you made such high quality models when they end up hurtinng your game play?

Isn't that really a BAD decision and not a brag worthy one?