Comparison Project cars vs Forza 6.

[klondike]

Hi i wrote a lengthy post in the Project cars sub forum.

Just thought I would post it here too. Since there may be some of you who bought the X one with the arival of Forza, and may wonder if its worth picking up Project cars too.

To the Moderator. I hope its ok to post it here too, If not I apoligise and you are free to move the post or delete at your will :-)

I have both Forza 6 and Project cars.

I like them both, they suplement each other in a good way. Neather is perfect, but for people who love car games and have and Xbox 1 both games should be in the collection.

To sum up my view.

Project cars.

Physics are better than Forza 6.

Sound is way better.

Camera system is very good. its posibel to set field of view to a lot of diferent ways to suit your liking.

Tracks. There are a ton of tracks some very fun and more unknown tracks that has not been in other titles before as long as most of the big ones that we all love form all the other racing games.

Cars. There is not many compared with Gran turismo or Forza. But still a lot of cars more than enough if you ask me. But I am also the kind of person who prefer to drive the same car for a very long time until i get to know it.

From a simulation standpoint it is supirior to Forza 6.

If you love to do time trials and fine tune your car this is a very good game.

Tuning is good, but its not posibel to buy new parts and upgrade your cars like in Forza.

So many bugs exist in the game. Some have been patched out but there are still a ton of bugs. It will proberly never be free of bugs. The code it self seems to be a bowl of spaggetti mess. Might be the nature of the Xbox one that is hard to code on, since other games also have problems. Although P Cars is extremely bugged.

Also it has some poor menu design. Cant change controller settings or other settings while doing time trials or races, have to exit and go all the way back to options to change it. That combined with the game is somewhat hard to find the best controller input settings makes it very anoying, to a point where some people just dont want to hazzle with it anymore and just shelf the game.

I dont play much multiplayer. But word on the street is its a total mess more or less unplayable.

The Single player campaing. Is not that well designed eather. It lacks options. And there is not much feel of working towards a goal. Since the game is fully unlocked from the start. So you wont earn money or XP to have the feel of being able to buy better cars and part for them.

Achivements. If you like to 100 % a game with all achivements its more or less imposibel because some bugs with achivements and how the game tracks your progress.

The community forum. The developers have been very active with interacting with the customers, unfortunetly its lead by people who are unwilling to listen to any form of contructive critisism. If you post is negative the Forum moderators have some sort of weird arrogant humor, you will most likely be banned or get trolled by fan boys that is uncapable of having a mature discusion about the game and what could be done to further improve it.


Forza 6.

Physics are good but not as good as Project cars. It is still a sim game, but its just not as well done as Project cars.

Sounds are somewhat low. Not as bad as Gran Turismo, but seems worse than previous Forza titles and not as good as Project cars.

Camera system. Can be a real pain there are not many options to adjust field of view or seat hight. In car view in some cars, you can barely see the road because you sit to low or far back in the car. Hopefully turn 10 will fix this in a future patch.

Tracks. Has fewer tracks than Project Cars, but still have most of the big ones we all love.

Cars. There are a lot more than Project cars + the ability to buy parts and upgrade them with your own cusomized livery's . Its supirior to Project cars in this department

Single player is a lot more fun than Project cars. There is a natural progression and it feels like there is a goal to work towards when earning money and credits. It has some elements of a more arcadish feel compared to Project cars. There is a spin / lotto system for earning prizes, and also there are mods that can change game conditions. The more serious sim lover may not like it this way, but I think main stream customers will find it fun and entertaning. I like it a lot my self, and im normally more of a sim guy and mostly dislike arcade racers.

Tuning. You can both upgrade and buy new parts for your cars and tune them to all your liking.

Multiplayer. Its working its easy to get a lobby, and a quick race fix when ever you desire. The races are often filled with rammers and idiots who think its destruction derby though, but that is not the games fault, Its just the nature of more or less every online racing game out there.

It also has a few bugs. Some achivements are currently bugged, and there are isues with some cars that are over powered and drivertars are bugged too where it can sometimes be imposibel to win a single player race even on the easyest settings. Turn 10 has stated that they are looking into the isues, and they will be fixed in a future patch.

The community forum. Turn 10 is not that active on their own forum. They post rarely and keep the customers mostly in the unknow about further updating the game.

Verdict.

Project Cars. It is a very good game besides all the bugs. For people who truely love simulation car and racing games it is a must buy. For the average joe or main stream customer it may not be the best choice.

Forza 6. Its very fun and addictive I think it is more cattered for the average joe compared to Project cars. But still for people who loves racing games it should be a must buy.

So to sum it up. If you love racing games and have the Xbox one these two games are both must have as the suplement each other very well.

 

[Speedster911]

There is no comparison at all my friend: FM6 is technically superior in every way.

However, from a simulation standpoint, PCARS may be edging ahead but only slightly. Forza is a complete product.

What bugs me about PCARS is the engine sounds - the road cars don't sound convincing at all. Race cars sound pretty accurate.

Visuals in CARS, last-gen and bland-looking compared to Forza.

Anyway, I have both games too and FM6 gets most of the playtime, and I am as well, like many others here a sim nut, and a complete sucker for realism. Forza absolutely nails many aspects of racing and the mere thrill of driving a high powered car that CARS doesn't.

Both games have their unique strengths and weaknesses. I think by the time CARS 2 comes out with 2 or 3 patches... either that or CARS 3.. is where they might really start to give Forza real competition. Unless T10 has something extra special up their sleeve with the upcoming FM7 and 8 this generation.

 

[Minty]

I always felt like while the audio in PCArs was accurate, but it sounds more like GoPro footage than what your ears would hear. It always sounds distorted and fairly lacking in detail all around. It sounds great if you're just going for the intensity of racing, but not so much for realism. The sounds in the race cars are good, but still over done and distorted, where Forza's are a little too clean. I'd love to see the roadnoise from PCars mixed with the nearly distortion-free engine sounds of FM6, because right now my only issue with the sounds is there's very little other than just engine noise, as good as it is. The road cars are a whole other story of over the top with PCars, though.



The replay sounds amazing, though.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

There is no comparison at all my friend: FM6 is technically superior in every way.

However, from a simulation standpoint, PCARS may be edging ahead but only slightly. Forza is a complete product.

What bugs me about PCARS is the engine sounds - the road cars don't sound convincing at all. Race cars sound pretty accurate.

Actually PCars is superior in a few ways and Forza in others. I play the PC version Of PCars so many of the bugs the XB1 crowd experienced are a non factor for me.
Forza has no way to create a public lobby, PCars does
Forza has no way to tune your car in a lobby, PCars does.
Forza has no dynamic time or weather, PCars does.

Forza has good upgrade system, Pcars does not.
Forza has a good paint system, PCars does not.
Forza works better on XB1 but PCars works on PS4 and PC also.

As for engine sounds, while they sound good in Forza many of them are far from accurate and very exaggerated.

For example I was driving an old VW bus with the stock exhaust and the engine was roaring like it was a race car. If you watched the replay when shown from behind there was a trace of that distinctive old VW sould but it was buried in the artificial race car sound they added to it. I've driven a few of these in real life and they do not sound like that.

Overall both are great games, both have their pros and cons. PCars is the better sim without a doubt. Forza is the better game but if PCars would have used a system of credit earning, buying collecting and upgrading cars like Forza and GT rather than the typical PC Sim sandbox type mode then PCars could have been the better overall game as well.

Both games have bugs. So far I have saw more bugs in Forza that effect me than I did in PCars. My brother had his save file corrupted after he reached level 120 or so and had to start over and I have had as many crashes in Forza in the first week than I had in PCars during the first month.

Edit: and the part I find a bit laughable is that I can use my Forza brandend Fanatec wheel to Play PCars on the PC or on the PS4 but can't use it to play Forza 6 at all.

 

[Speedster911]

Actually PCars is superior in a few ways and Forza in others. I play the PC version Of PCars so many of the bugs the XB1 crowd experienced are a non factor for me.
Forza has no way to create a public lobby, PCars does
Forza has no way to tune your car in a lobby, PCars does.
Forza has no dynamic time or weather, PCars does.

Forza has good upgrade system, Pcars does not.
Forza has a good paint system, PCars does not.
Forza works better on XB1 but PCars works on PS4 and PC also.

As for engine sounds, while they sound good in Forza many of them are far from accurate and very exaggerated.

For example I was driving an old VW bus with the stock exhaust and the engine was roaring like it was a race car. If you watched the replay when shown from behind there was a trace of that distinctive old VW sould but it was buried in the artificial race car sound they added to it. I've driven a few of these in real life and they do not sound like that.

Overall both are great games, both have their pros and cons. PCars is the better sim without a doubt. Forza is the better game but if PCars would have used a system of credit earning, buying collecting and upgrading cars like Forza and GT rather than the typical PC Sim sandbox type mode then PCars could have been the better overall game as well.

Both games have bugs. So far I have saw more bugs in Forza that effect me than I did in PCars. My brother had his save file corrupted after he reached level 120 or so and had to start over and I have had as many crashes in Forza in the first week than I had in PCars during the first month.

Edit: and the part I find a bit laughable is that I can use my Forza brandend Fanatec wheel to Play PCars on the PC or on the PS4 but can't use it to play Forza 6 at all.

Forza 6 does have its share of inaccurate engine sounds, no doubt. However, majority of them are accurate. If you're going to drag the PC version into this, then I suppose there isn't much point in comparing that to Forza, is there?

 

[JR98]

Forza 6 does have its share of inaccurate engine sounds, no doubt. However, majority of them are accurate. If you're going to drag the PC version into this, then I suppose there isn't much point in comparing that to Forza, is there?

I think he brought up the PC version because that was the version he played, not the XB1 version.

 

[Speedster911]

I think he brought up the PC version because that was the version he played, not the XB1 version.

Well, in that case... I might enjoy it more too on a maxed out PC. Cos' between PC and Forza 6 there isn't much sense in making comparisons - they are both on different levels and winners in their own unique way.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Forza 6 does have its share of inaccurate engine sounds, no doubt. However, majority of them are accurate. If you're going to drag the PC version into this, then I suppose there isn't much point in comparing that to Forza, is there?

I played the PC version, and it is still Project cars. It just so happens that the XBox 1 version did not work as well as the PC version. Forza is only available on the XB1 so that is what I am forced to play it on. If there were a PC version I would have that instead.

At any rate if you are comparing games and one game is multi platform then those platforms come into play. Still the only thing I mentioned that the PC version has over the console version is the expanded leaderboards and the far better wheel support, XB1 version is the weakest of the bunch when it comes to supported wheels and possibly the most buggy as well.

And no I do not run a maxxed out PC just a decent one that is capable of playing the game well enough, that doesn't change the fact that be it pc or console project cars does have features that Forza 6 does not have and PCars has better physics, weather, time of day, racing than FM6 so to have said that Forza is superior in every way is utter rubbish. You might like it better but you have to give PCars its props as they turned out a decent sim and made it work on both major consoles.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Forza 6 does have its share of inaccurate engine sounds, no doubt. However, majority of them are accurate. If you're going to drag the PC version into this, then I suppose there isn't much point in comparing that to Forza, is there?

Which is good, considering how few road cars pcars had to get right and failed compared to the 460+ in forza getting a couple wrong isn't too much of a big deal in comparison. So in my opinion also Forza is superior to pcars in sounds as they had a lot more work to do in this area and a higher chance of getting more wrong than they have.

 

[skazz]

I was watching a video of Forza 6 just now and realized what was bugging me... AI cars aren't affected by shadows cast over the track. The lighting model in general is all somewhat of a mismatch, not true light-source-affects-stuff but tweaked and tweaked to hit that frame rate requirement.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing on console, but it does bug me. pCARS (at least on PC where I play it) does a considerably more rounded job of handling the lighting, more so because it's fully dynamic of course.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

I was watching a video of Forza 6 just now and realized what was bugging me... AI cars aren't affected by shadows cast over the track. The lighting model in general is all somewhat of a mismatch, not true light-source-affects-stuff but tweaked and tweaked to hit that frame rate requirement.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing on console, but it does bug me. pCARS (at least on PC where I play it) does a considerably more rounded job of handling the lighting, more so because it's fully dynamic of course.

It's because they insist on using an outdated rendering engine. Every other light bar source gets more and more expensive to use. If they dragged there arse out of the last decade every other light source would be cheap. Plus, when the time came and they were ready to go fully dynamic weather and time of day, the tech would be in place to do just that. These 2 year cycles are too short for that to happen though, hopefully they are working on a new engine because they are already falling behind the curve in that respect.

 

[SimTourist]

It's because they insist on using an outdated rendering engine. Every other light bar source gets more and more expensive to use. If they dragged there arse out of the last decade every other light source would be cheap. Plus, when the time came and they were ready to go fully dynamic weather and time of day, the tech would be in place to do just that. These 2 year cycles are too short for that to happen though, hopefully they are working on a new engine because they are already falling behind the curve in that respect.

There is no game on Xbone that runs at 1080p/60 and has dynamic ToD and Weather, the system is simply too weak for it, it could be done if you reduce resolution/framerate or both but T10 is not willing to make those compromises. The engine already has dynamic ToD/Weather built into it, the same engine powers FM and Horizon after all, but the system is not capable of running it at locked 60. Now it's a matter of waiting for the next generation to turn these features on.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

There is no game on Xbone that runs at 1080p/60 and has dynamic ToD and Weather, the system is simply too weak for it, it could be done if you reduce resolution/framerate or both but T10 is not willing to make those compromises.

Read what I wrote, I said when the time comes. I did not say anything about XB1.

The engine already has dynamic ToD/Weather built into it, the same engine powers FM and Horizon after all, but the system is not capable of running it at locked 60. Now it's a matter of waiting for the next generation to turn these features on.

And just wait to see how bad that will look compared to a game running the same features on a more suited rendering engine. FFS SimTourist we went through this months ago. Go back to then and refresh your memory.

The change will have to happen.

 

[ImaRobot]

Read what I wrote, I said when the time comes. I did not say anything about XB1.



And just wait to see how bad that will look compared to a game running the same features on a more suited rendering engine. FFS SimTourist we went through this months ago. Go back to then and refresh your memory.

The change will have to happen.

Then at this point it is irrelevant. You can't just try to knock a game down and then throw in just wait until one of these years in the future, probably, because, there is probably a game company that might do something better, probably as an excuse as to why they need to abandon what they have. Like he said, there is no game that has shown to get this to work properly, so as it sits, its not absolutely necessary if its going to hinder gameplay.

Who's to say that it's not in the works? They can very well push to be the first, and I'm hoping they are, but this method is not obsolete considering the competitions method is faulty.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

Then at this point it is irrelevant.

No it is not, I answered Skazz' question as to why the environment lighting does not cast realistic shadows and why that is the case, other games already do this because they are not using outdated methods. Then (Listen up because this is where you are getting confused) I added the plus parts purely for when they are ready to step it up and add features a lot more fitting to what a lot of people have requested.

You can't just try to knock a game down and then throw in just wait until one of these years in the future, probably, because, there is probably a game company that might do something better, probably as an excuse as to why they need to abandon what they have.

I can and I will, purely because these features are out there right now. PCars on my PC and PS4 already does this to my satisfaction. More games will do it better and better as time goes on. Carry on along this path and behind the curve they will fall, more and more.

Like he said, there is no game that has shown to get this to work properly, so as it sits, its not absolutely necessary if its going to hinder gameplay.

On Xbox One which I sort of agree with (and kind of don't because we have yet to see an exclusive title attempt this on XB1 title, T10 use this outdated tech to save time, nothing else) Also games on XB1 are not the only games competing for my time and money. As far as I am concerned, Dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>> Static every time. Game play is subjective to the player in this case. Some people like a solid 60fps (which is totally achievable using modern techniques and would look better as stated above with the whole shadow casting problem, they don't have to add dynamics into the pipeline and still walk away with 1. A better looking game at a controllable FPS. 2. Groundwork in place for the future) and some people like myself prefer a more dynamic experience because, after all, racing tracks are exactly that. Ever changing.

Who's to say that it's not in the works? They can very well push to be the first, and I'm hoping they are, but this method is not obsolete considering the competitions method is faulty.

Err.. I think you'll find I have said that (hope that even), but they definitely won't be first. Which does not matter, as long as they do it in a relevant time frame.

Lastly, I have read a lot of your posts lately and it seems from the outside you are generally taking things too personally. People are not going to share your views all of the time, as long as you are having fun it does not matter what anyone thinks, says or does. 👍

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Ironically other companies have been able to get dynamic weather and TOD into their games at a decent frame rate on much weaker systems than the XB1. GTR2 for the PC comes to mind, it has Dynamic TOD and will run on a PC that is about equal to a 360 possibly weaker than a 360.

One of the biggest issues they have is that every new version they pump up the graphics to a new level and as a result do not have enough power left over to do the other things that need to be done. As far as I am concerned the Graphics levels in FM3 were good enough 4 even more so. It they would have used that extra power for physics, dynamic weather and TOD and left the graphics alone then we would have more total cars in game, more tracks and more cars on the track at the same time and still be at 60fps with a bit lower graphic levels but better game play.

I think people put to much focus on graphics now and less on game play

 

[ImaRobot]

No it is not, I answered Skazz' question as to why the environment lighting does not cast realistic shadows and why that is the case, other games already do this because they are not using outdated methods. Then (Listen up because this is where you are getting confused) I added the plus parts purely for when they are ready to step it up and add features a lot more fitting to what a lot of people have requested.

Other games doing this is up to debate. Yeah sure, it's there, but it working properly is a different story. I find this fitting, because it actually allows the game to function as it is intended too, rather than throwing in a gimmick to wow the crowd, when it hardly works. I was not confused about it at all.

I can and I will, purely because these features are out there right now. PCars on my PC and PS4 already does this to my satisfaction. More games will do it better and better as time goes on. Carry on along this path and behind the curve they will fall, more and more.

You can, you very well can. I'm just saying, throwing it out there and knocking a game based of speculation that sometime in the future there might possibly be a game that can get this done is not a valid reason at all. Will that stop you from making a baseless assumption? No. But you should at least take it in.

Taking PC into consideration comparing it to the inferior PS4 and Xbox one, it's no wonder that it works fine on that. However, that isn't the case on consoles. My satisfaction is playing a game that is able to maintain it's actually advertised frames.



That doesn't really look satisfactory to me. Harder to find videos more recent than May, but the point here still stands. They are not behind the curve, they just didn't jump in with the rest of the crowd to implement a feature that doesn't even work as intended. I'm glad for that as 60fps locked is greater a feature.

On Xbox One which I sort of agree with (and kind of don't because we have yet to see an exclusive title attempt this on XB1 title, T10 use this outdated tech to save time, nothing else) Also games on XB1 are not the only games competing for my time and money. As far as I am concerned, Dynamic >>>>>>>>>>>>> Static every time. Game play is subjective to the player in this case. Some people like a solid 60fps (which is totally achievable using modern techniques and would look better as stated above with the whole shadow casting problem, they don't have to add dynamics into the pipeline and still walk away with 1. A better looking game at a controllable FPS. 2. Groundwork in place for the future) and some people like myself prefer a more dynamic experience because, after all, racing tracks are exactly that. Ever changing.

In the mean time, I'm glad that they chose this route rather then messing up their game like everyone else seems to like to do. Keep the "outdated" tech, while working on something that works, is no problem considering the competition can't seem to get it working.

Never will faulty tech be greater. That is just ridiculous. When they get it actually functioning correctly, then yeah I'll agree with you until the end of time, but as it sits, Dynamic(fault at that) will not be better then a 100% functioning game without it.

You say its totally achievable, yet it has not been produced what so ever yet, so that holds no grounds, or doesn't yet at least. There has been nothing to support that evidence so far, so we can wait and see patiently and not knock a game on a possibility that doesn't exist yet.

I prefer a dynamic experience that works, because the only thing that is ever changing is the FPS, and that's not a good thing.

Err.. I think you'll find I have said that (hope that even), but they definitely won't be first. Which does not matter, as long as they do it in a relevant time frame.

Here's to hoping.

Lastly, I have read a lot of your posts lately and it seems from the outside you are generally taking things too personally. People are not going to share your views all of the time, as long as you are having fun it does not matter what anyone thinks, says or does. 👍

Except that I'm not taking anything personally. I'm just posting on a subject I have interest in, just as you are. So should I assume that you're taking it too serious as well, since you decided to elaborate on the subject?

I see, way to often, that when someone disagrees with someone the others automatically think the person is taking it personally, which isn't the case at all. I can very well get into a discussion and not take anything personally as long as I'm not directly called out like that(which you haven't done 👍) I'm even friends with plenty of people that I don't disagree with. I have no problem controlling my feelings, even if the debate is hot. I'm not bothered, nor do I care who shares or doesn't share my views, that will not effect how I talk about it.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

Other games doing this is up to debate. Yeah sure, it's there, but it working properly is a different story. I find this fitting, because it actually allows the game to function as it is intended too, rather than throwing in a gimmick to wow the crowd, when it hardly works. I was not confused about it at all.

Hahaha... Gimmick

Re-read it again because somehow you missed the point of the whole original post, again.

Hahaha... That gimmick line got me chuckling I must admit.

You can, you very well can. I'm just saying, throwing it out there and knocking a game based of speculation that sometime in the future there might possibly be a game that can get this done is not a valid reason at all. Will that stop you from making a baseless assumption? No. But you should at least take it in.

Again, read my ****ing post, what is wrong with you? Seriously! I cannot explain it any more clearly than I have above. It's like you are seeing certain words and going into a blind rage. All I ask is you go back and try to comprehend what I am saying, it's all there I assure you. Your missing the point entirely.

Taking PC into consideration comparing it to the inferior PS4 and Xbox one, it's no wonder that it works fine on that.

Exactly. My time and money goes to them then.

However, that isn't the case on consoles.

Works fine on PS4 post 3.0. The video you posted is old, really old.

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_pcars_gets_a_new_patch-16630_en.html

Videos at the bottom

In the mean time, I'm glad that they chose this route rather then messing up their game like everyone else seems to like to do. Keep the "outdated" tech, while working on something that works, is no problem considering the competition can't seem to get it working.

Never will faulty tech be greater. That is just ridiculous. When they get it actually functioning correctly, then yeah I'll agree with you until the end of time, but as it sits, Dynamic(fault at that) will not be better then a 100% functioning game without it.

You say its totally achievable, yet it has not been produced what so ever yet, so that holds no grounds, or doesn't yet at least. There has been nothing to support that evidence so far, so we can wait and see patiently and not knock a game on a possibility that doesn't exist yet.

I prefer a dynamic experience that works, because the only thing that is ever changing is the FPS, and that's not a good thing.

You honestly have no clue of what you are on about. It is actually shocking and, slightly embarrassing to read.

Here's to hoping.

Yes, I can agree with that.

Except that I'm not taking anything personally. I'm just posting on a subject I have interest in, just as you are. So should I assume that you're taking it too serious as well, since you decided to elaborate on the subject?

First of, I said generally, as in, looking round at your posts. Secondly, if you don't see it that's fine. Who am I to tell you how to live your life. and lastly.....

Gimmick hahahaha... still gets me everytime.

 

[ImaRobot]

Hahaha... Gimmick

Re-read it again because somehow you missed the point of the whole original post, again.

Hahaha... That gimmick line got me chuckling I must admit.

It most certainly is a gimmick. The are throwing it in as a feature and advertising it, if it doesn't work as intended then all it is is a gimmick. Even more so is that people are blowing it up as something amazing and how all games should have it. While I agree it would be great for games to have it, I don't agree that it should be thrown in for the sake of having it, especially when its not optimized.

Again, read my ****ing post, what is wrong with you? Seriously! I cannot explain it any more clearly than I have above. It's like you are seeing certain words and going into a blind rage. All I ask is you go back and try to comprehend what I am saying, it's all there I assure you. Your missing the point entirely.

You talk about the features being out, and how the competition is up to date and how they are holding on to old techniques. You are using the assumption that in the future more games will probably do it better. So if no games are currently doing it good, why are you toting up these other games? The future is irrelevant if you are going to knock a game for not doing something now while bringing in the competition to compare too. They are not behind the curve, if the curve is just throwing in something in to have it on their advertisement.

So again, you say its doable, yet no one has been able to achieve it. So until then, don't bring it up as a downside to a game, if any other game is having problems with it as well.

Works fine on PS4 post 3.0. The video you posted is old, really old.

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_pcars_gets_a_new_patch-16630_en.html

Videos at the bottom

It is 4 months old, you are correct. It was hard to find videos concerning frame rate tests with any current build. Hopefully we'll see one soon.

It still looks like the Xbox is behind which is a bit disappointing.

You honestly have no clue of what you are on about. It is actually shocking and, slightly embarrassing to read.

What exactly am I having no clue about, because most of that post was my opinion on Frames per second and my liking towards functioning tech. All you're doing is making it seem like you don't have anything to counter it with so you just choose to troll around the subject.

First of, I said generally, as in, looking round at your posts. Secondly, if you don't see it that's fine. Who am I to tell you how to live your life. and lastly.....

Doesn't matter if it's generally or literally, I told you that is not the case so that should be it. The funny thing is that you're the only one going over the top with seriousness here with the cussing and blatant dismissing and the passive aggressive laughing and condescending behavior.

Gimmick hahahaha... still gets me everytime.

It seems you don't like that word, why is that? It is a major selling point, and advertisement for the game, it is also a feature that people want in a sim, yet it isn't optimized. That is almost literally the definition of gimmick. What word might you use?

 

[BoneSawTX]

I'd use half baked cow patty if not gimmick. Gt5 weather was no different then the weather used in Le Mans 24 Hours on the Ps2, in fact it was better on LM24.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

Doesn't matter if it's generally or literally, I told you that is not the case so that should be it. The funny thing is that you're the only one going over the top with seriousness here with the cussing and blatant dismissing and the passive aggressive laughing and condescending behavior.

First off I apologise if I have a condescending tone, but it's hard not to when you seriously have no clue what you are on about. Why you keep missing the point I was making is beyond me, honestly. If you wan't me to explain any further my stance I suggest you go and read about Forward+ Rendering Vs Deffered Rendering. See which is better suited for what a racing game would wan't to achieve (dynamic or even static night racing for that matter). If you still feel the same way come back with a solid argument and I will continue further but as of now you're uneducated and uninformed on the subject.

If you would have just said "you know what, I like FM the way it is and it does not need to change for features I don't care for" I would have respected your opinion. But this.... This is.... I'm sorry, I keep sliding up and reading bits you have wrote, then I shake my head in disbelief. It's a mishmash of WTF!

So in summary, sorry if I'm coming across as passive aggressive or condescending, but you are in a debate you have little knowledge of (you cannot even understand the basics of my point let alone the techniques I'm discussing) On the one hand it is funny to see, on the other it is just plain annoying now. Here are my points outlined and wrote in a way you should... Should finally get to grips with


Forza Motorsport would look better now if they had went with a better, more up to date rendering engine.

Forza Motorsport would be in a better position going forward if they had went with a better, more up to date rendering engine.

Turn 10 use outdated rendering techniques to save time, nothing more, nothing less. That for me, is detriment to the series.

So when you get your head around the different rendering techniques out there, had a look around at what games run what and so on. Worked out the pro's and con's, if you still feel the same after that, come and tell me, I'll be happy to discuss why you are wrong. 👍

I'd use half baked cow patty if not gimmick. Gt5 weather was no different then the weather used in Le Mans 24 Hours on the Ps2, in fact it was better on LM24.

Haha your hatred for GT only serves my point further... 6 FM's and not doing something possible TWO generations ago.

For the record I thought GT5 and 6 was pretty **** TBH, as I have stated in the past a few times, so if you think I am just another drive by fanboy you are seriously mistaken. I'll play any game on any console if I think it's worth my time and money.

 

[ImaRobot]

First off I apologise if I have a condescending tone, but it's hard not to when you seriously have no clue what you are on about. Why you keep missing the point I was making is beyond me, honestly. If you wan't me to explain any further my stance I suggest you go and read about Forward+ Rendering Vs Deffered Rendering. See which is better suited for what a racing game would wan't to achieve (dynamic or even static night racing for that matter). If you still feel the same way come back with a solid argument and I will continue further but as of now you're uneducated and uninformed on the subject.

If you would have just said "you know what, I like FM the way it is and it does not need to change for features I don't care for" I would have respected your opinion. But this.... This is.... I'm sorry, I keep sliding up and reading bits you have wrote, then I shake my head in disbelief. It's a mishmash of WTF!

My opinions are based solely on my experience and what I like/don't like. My explaining, defending, or going against something should clearly show my stance on the situation and why I feel that way. Even more so, I didn't say I don't care for the features. In fact I said the opposite.

I find this fitting, because it actually allows the game to function as it is intended too,

In my very second post, I even stated it as so. I was never talking about what ever the heck just wrote right now. I was simply talking about one game not working while having this feature, and one game working 100% without it. My point was strictly speaking about how you think they are behind on the times and aren't delivering a requested feature. I was pointing out that it's not necessarily a bad thing that they don't have this feature, if the competition cant even get it to work. I was never speaking of the methods to which these outcomes are produced, I think you may have been reading to much into it.

So in summary, sorry if I'm coming across as passive aggressive or condescending, but you are in a debate you have little knowledge of (you cannot even understand the basics of my point let alone the techniques I'm discussing) On the one hand it is funny to see, on the other it is just plain annoying now. Here are my points outlined and wrote in a way you should... Should finally get to grips with

I'm not in a debate about that though, you are solely in that debate with yourself as I was never mentioning that fact, or the methods. More so that it's not really a bad thing that they didn't deliver a feature that games are implementing right now, and described why I felt that way.

Forza Motorsport would look better now if they had went with a better, more up to date rendering engine.

I definitely agree, but again, I was never debating that.

Forza Motorsport would be in a better position going forward if they had went with a better, more up to date rendering engine.

Definitely, and they are probably working on the Horizons dynamic settings to try to get them to function in Motorsport. We don't know either way though. So the footing has been there since FH2, it just wasn't implemented in FM6.

Turn 10 use outdated rendering techniques to save time, nothing more, nothing less. That for me, is detriment to the series.

Either to save time, or to make sure the game is functioning 100% as advertised. Doesn't seem to work yet, but hopefully soon.

So when you get your head around the different rendering techniques out there, had a look around at what games run what and so on. Worked out the pro's and con's, if you still feel the same after that, come and tell me, I'll be happy to discuss why you are wrong. 👍

My view isn't changing of the topic I was talking about, however, I was not discussing any of this in the first place. I was discussing why I think it's not necessary to force a feature if it doesn't work as intended.

 

[BoneSawTX]

Poorly done with frame rate losses or solid 60fps minus the transition. I'll take the solid 60 and I'm fairly new to FM after GT since day one.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

In my very second post, I even stated it as so. I was never talking about what ever the heck just wrote right now. I was simply talking about one game not working while having this feature, and one game working 100% without it. My point was strictly speaking about how you think they are behind on the times and aren't delivering a requested feature. I was pointing out that it's not necessarily a bad thing that they don't have this feature, if the competition cant even get it to work. I was never speaking of the methods to which these outcomes are produced, I think you may have been reading to much into it.

First off, If you actually read my first post you would see that I said..

It's because they insist on using an outdated rendering engine. Every other light bar source gets more and more expensive to use. If they dragged there arse out of the last decade every other light source would be cheap.

In other words, better looking night races where better lighting and shadows would be easier to accomplish within T10's rendering budget. ANSWERING SKAZZ QUESTION!!!!

Then I wrote.....

Plus, when the time came and they were ready to go fully dynamic weather and time of day, the tech would be in place to do just that. These 2 year cycles are too short for that to happen though, hopefully they are working on a new engine because they are already falling behind the curve in that respect.

Break that down.... "Plus" meaning an added bonus in near future iterations. Not now... future... You keep forgetting that it is 1. added bonus 2. future

"2 year cycles are too short" in respect to any major development progress on writing this new engine, transferring everything into that.. More cars/tracks = more work in the longer run, writing all new shaders, etc, etc. So the longer it goes on the more work they will inevitably have to do (since you have admitted little knowledge on the subject and have no intention of actually trying, you will have to take my word for it when I say it is inevitable)

hopefully they are working on a new engine because they are already falling behind the curve in that respect.

This is the only bit it you really paid any attention to as far as I can tell. It's like you seen this part and it was a red rag to a Bull. Technically, as of right this second in time. They are behind the curve. Does not matter about execution of the titles what are technically superior in terms of rendering techniques. Does not matter if you like it or not. That is FACT.

Your whole argument is based on one man's opinion like you said and that is one of the reasons where you are going wrong. The other reason is you don't understand what you are talking about. Here is a prime example.

Definitely, and they are probably working on the Horizons dynamic settings to try to get them to function in Motorsport. We don't know either way though. So the footing has been there since FH2, it just wasn't implemented in FM6.

I'll reply further if you can work out what is wrong with what you are saying.

Poorly done with frame rate losses or solid 60fps minus the transition. I'll take the solid 60 and I'm fairly new to FM after GT since day one.

You got what you wanted, I am happy for you.

 

[ImaRobot]

In other words, better looking night races where better lighting and shadows would be easier to accomplish within T10's rendering budget. ANSWERING SKAZZ QUESTION!!!!

Then I wrote.....

Which, again, I was never talking about.

Break that down.... "Plus" meaning an added bonus in near future iterations. Not now... future... You keep forgetting that it is 1. added bonus 2. future

Which is what they've already started with Horizon.

"2 year cycles are too short" in respect to any major development progress on writing this new engine, transferring everything into that.. More cars/tracks = more work in the longer run, writing all new shaders, etc, etc. So the longer it goes on the more work they will inevitably have to do (since you have admitted little knowledge on the subject and have no intention of actually trying, you will have to take my word for it when I say it is inevitable)

I'm not going to try because I was never discussing that subject in the first place. I'm still not on that subject, I was never on that subject, and I don't plan to jump on that subject.

This is the only bit it you really paid any attention to as far as I can tell. It's like you seen this part and it was a red rag to a Bull. Technically, as of right this second in time. They are behind the curve. Does not matter about execution of the titles what are technically superior in terms of rendering techniques. Does not matter if you like it or not. That is FACT.

That is because that is literally the only thing I've been discussing since the beginning. You went off on your own about all this other crap, and I didn't initiate anything to do with all that other crap. I was only talking about this because I said I didn't see it as a problem if they are going to continue this route and not implement dynamic TOD/weather, if the competition has it and it doesn't work properly. That is literally why I'm not paying attention to any of that other stuff, I was never, ever, ever talking about it in the first place. I did not mention one thing about the other things, or even something that might resemble it. That is a fact, but like I said, I was never saying they weren't using an inferior technique, I was just saying its not that much a problem if the superior technique is not even going to function.

The execution of these titles matters the most, because using a superior technique doesn't mean crap if they can't get it to work.

Your whole argument is based on one man's opinion like you said and that is one of the reasons where you are going wrong. The other reason is you don't understand what you are talking about. Here is a prime example.

It's not that I don't understand, it's just that I was not talking about it at all. Go back and read and you might find out, but as it sits, I don't give two craps about those other subjects as I wasn't talking about them and never hinted at the subject you made up in your mind. My opinion was that of liking a functioning game, versus not liking another that doesn't function even if it has features that could make it better(if it actually worked.) If you had payed attention, you would have noticed that. Instead you chose to go off on a tangent for some odd reason and go off on me as if I'm not understanding. I'm understanding alright, I'm just not talking about it so theres no need to reply about something like that in the first place.

That's like asking someone how to build a dog house, and they go off talking about how the wood is cut and shaped from the tree's in the forest.. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion I presented.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

I was just saying its not that much a problem if the superior technique is not even going to function.

But the superior rendering would work perfectly fine, better in fact than what they are using now. Totally controllable in terms of a locked 60 frames per second as long as they don't go fully dynamic as this is where the head aches would start for them on the current platform they are developing on.

You went off on your own about all this other crap, and I didn't initiate anything to do with all that other crap.

It is all synonymous to what I am discussing. Not my fault you do not see it. Like I said if you are not willing to read up on the subject, I am definitely not going to discuss any further.

t's not that I don't understand, it's just that I was not talking about it at all.

No. You have proven time and time again you do not understand what I am talking about. Like this..

Which is what they've already started with Horizon.

You are oblivious.

 

[ImaRobot]

But the superior rendering would work perfectly fine, better in fact than what they are using now. Totally controllable in terms of a locked 60 frames per second as long as they don't go fully dynamic as this is where the head aches would start for them on the current platform they are developing on.



It is all synonymous to what I am discussing. Not my fault you do not see it. Like I said if you are not willing to read up on the subject, I am definitely not going to discuss any further.



No. You have proven time and time again you do not understand what I am talking about. Like this..






You are oblivious.

Well the fact of the matter is that I was not, and never have been talking about whatever you seem to be talking about, so there is no need to educate my self on a subject I didn't start, and especially one that I never even went on about in the first place. You have been the only one on that side of whatever that discussion was, so if you want to pretend that I was, there's no stopping you.

I just don't understand how you don't realize you are the only one going on about whatever you're going on about. Just a bit odd really considering you keep saying I'm lost. I'm not lost, I'm just literally not even talking about anything remotely close I that.

It is all synonymous to what I am discussing. Not my fault you do not see it. Like I said if you are not willing to read up on the subject, I am definitely not going to discuss any further.

Yet it still has nothing to do with my point of having the superior method doesn't mean anything if it hardly works. Again, you are going off into a subject that no one is talking about, an that has nothing to do with the original point and opinion I was sharing.

You are literally fighting against something that absolutely no one is talking about.

 

[Mr Latte]

Simple if you prefer one to the other then play it more...

 

[SimTourist]

And just wait to see how bad that will look compared to a game running the same features on a more suited rendering engine. FFS SimTourist we went through this months ago. Go back to then and refresh your memory.

How is Horizon 2's method outdated compared to PCars/GT if it's doing the exact same thing - the world and cars have uniform lighting engine and dynamic shadows for both? Does Horizon 2 look bad compared to either of those? No. So what's the problem?

 

[mrPetros]

.....
Both games have bugs. So far I have saw more bugs in Forza that effect me than I did in PCars.....

sorry but I am having real trouble trying to figure out if you are joking or not!