Dicked on

[yeti]

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/526/526860p2.html

IGN Compares GT4 and Forza...

All 3 judges choose the obvious...

Surprise!

C.

 

[Darin]

Oh god... I saw NFS:Underground and I left.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Competition is a good thing though.

I laughed at the "extreme customisation" line.

And 60fps...wow that is fast, but I thought only insects could tell the difference between that and 40fps. I'm fooled at 30fps

 

[Solid Lifters]

Oh god... I saw NFS:Underground and I left.

I saw the IGN link, and never clicked on it.

 

[Eagle]

I'm curious what the Japanese chicks in revealing clothes have to do with the story.

I was under the impression the human eye operated at about 40fps, but either way, if the screen doesn't refresh at least once for every time your eye does, then you'd notice it because your eye and the TV may be refreshing at the same number of times per second but at different intervals within that second, so you'd get some noticable flicker, a bit like you get when you see a computer monitor out of the corner of your eye.

 

[Flerbizky]

I clicked the IGN link :shivers:

Final Score :

XBOX - NILL

PS2 - 3

 

[Cosmic]

Wannabe NFS:Underground

 

[Darin]

And we don't need another one.

 

[yeti]

I'm curious what the Japanese chicks in revealing clothes have to do with the story.

I was under the impression the human eye operated at about 40fps, but either way, if the screen doesn't refresh at least once for every time your eye does, then you'd notice it because your eye and the TV may be refreshing at the same number of times per second but at different intervals within that second, so you'd get some noticable flicker, a bit like you get when you see a computer monitor out of the corner of your eye.

Eye's don't work in Frames per second!!! They work in Hertz... and they work at 50Hz...

Which is why if you have you monitor set to a 60Hz refresh you tend to end up with headaches cos you catch too many "unfresh" screens!!! 75 is much better for your eyes!!

Standard TV's I beleive work at 66! (Although I could be wrong)!

And doesn't GT3 & 4 work at 60FPS?

C.

 

[Cosmic]

And we don't need another one.

Agree 👍
You mean , we don't need two more (Forza and NFS:U2).

 

[code_kev]

Someone had to say it

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/526/526860p6.html

XBOX : 3, PS2 : NILL

This is so pathetic, using a light hearted article to try and do the old "my console is better then yours" thing

 

[yeti]

This is so pathetic

Like Forza compared to GT4?!

You're so with the fanboyism attitude when Xbox can win an argument but so against it when it loses!!

C.

 

[code_kev]

Yeti, you must be blissfully unaware of the existance of sarcasm

 

[yeti]

Hmmm... you added that last sentence to your previous post.

C.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

And doesn't GT3 & 4 work at 60FPS?

C.

I know what you mean about Hertz and Fps, but cycles per second and frames per second...not much difference.

And no, GT4 is going to run at a solid 40fps. (Which is great)

60 is an overkill, might look slightly better on a 100Hz screen.

I see Fan Boy is here so I'm off

(Is GT3 out yet on the X-BOX )

 

[code_kev]

Oh yes, I'm TEH UB3R F4N B0Y, thats why I own a ps2 p33r me

Yeti I said what I said only in jest because of the posts before mine

 

[yeti]

I know what you mean about Hertz and Fps, but cycles per second and frames per second...not much difference.

Yup... basically they're exactly the same cept for what's outputting them/receiving them!!

In this case GT4 runs at 40FPS however the TV that is showing it will run at 66 or 100 Hz...

Thus nullifying the eyeache that would be caused by a low refresh rate.

C.

 

[Solid Lifters]

TVs run at 30hz+30hz. Odd lines at 30, even lines at 30 making a total of 60hz.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Yeti we are a couple of techies

I've got nothing against X-box, in fact Kev if you want to give me yours I'll happily take it

You know Argos is knocking them out at £128, that is pretty cheap.

 

[Zer0]

GT4 is announced to run at 60 fps the same as GT3, 40 fps in a 60Hz tv could make a nasty tearing image.

 

[yeti]

TVs run at 30hz+30hz. Odd lines at 30, even lines at 30 making a total of 60hz

Not strictly true...

There are two television display systems in commercial use: PAL (common in Europe and parts of Asia) delivers a scanning/frame rate of 25 fps (frames per second) with 625 lines, while NTSC (used in the U.S. and Canada) delivers a scanning/frame rate of 29.97 fps using 525 lines. A TV signal is made from interlaced half-frames, hence the 25 fps in 50 Hz countries, and 30 fps in 60 Hz countries.

C.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

GT4 is announced to run at 60 fps

My mistake Zero, I was going by a review of the E3 demo. Have since searched and yep some reports say 40-60 depending on track.

 

[yeti]

Yeah I remember KY saying something about having to calculate the car's position and speed etc every time the screen is displayed and therefore 60 times a second.

C>

 

[TriplePlay]

But wouldn't it be different then between NTSC and PAL? PAL would run smoother then, if I'm not misunderstanding, because there are less lines/fps to worry about. Please someone correct me. :/

 

[T5-R]

I know what you mean about Hertz and Fps, but cycles per second and frames per second...not much difference.

And no, GT4 is going to run at a solid 40fps. (Which is great)

60 is an overkill, might look slightly better on a 100Hz screen.

There is a visible difference between 40 & 60 fps, images played @ 60fps look much smoother. I've heard that in darkness it only takes 30 fps (think cinemas actually run @ 25 fps) to fool the eye into thinking its seeing a fluid moving image. Whereas in daylight 60fps is required to get the same effect.

However 60fps or 60hz is bare minium, as people have said 60hz can give people headaches. If you have 2 monitors side by side, one @ 60hz (say 60fps) & one at 75hz (say 75fps), you should find that using the 75hz monitor is far nicer.

However if games were to start blending in between different images 30fps would be fine, but that takes more processing than simply playing a game at 60 fps.

As for me I can tell the difference up to around 80fps (so 75hz is fine), after that the difference isn't noticable. If you've ever played a game in 50hz PAL mode & compare it to 60hz NTSC mode you should see a noticable difference in fluidness.

/Pity my monitor only does 60hz @ 1280*1024, does my head in

 

[code_kev]

once you've tasted 60 fps, 30 is dog ****

 

[Zer0]

But wouldn't it be different then between NTSC and PAL? PAL would run smoother then, if I'm not misunderstanding, because there are less lines/fps to worry about. Please someone correct me. :/

NTSC=60 Hz/60fps 525 lines
PAL=50 Hz/50fps 626 lines

NTSC is a bit smother but less image definition.

The maximum framerate displayed in a Tv is conditioned by the Hz´s of the video system(PAL/NTSC).

 

[Eagle]

Well, all makes a lot more sense now, thanks to everyone who contributed something meaningful.

 

[phantasm]

Hahahahahaha... reason #1 why Forza will suck it up compared to GT:

According to Jef Holove, Director of Product Marketing, Interactive Entertainment @ Logitech... "the Xbox console doesn't support force feedback. Even if a wheel maker or developer wants to implement force feedback it won't do any good, the hardware won't make it happen. On the Xbox side we're hopeful it'll work someday." ['borrowed' from IGN]

And as for all this supposed graphics enhancement of Forza over GT4... from the stuff i've seen Forza looks like it was coloured using pencil crayons and GT like it was photographed... so far IMO GT destroys Forza visually (granted Forza's still in an early build i guess).

GT 👍 👍 Forza

 

[TriplePlay]

Phantasm, go read the PSP article a somewhere on the front page. There is a link posted on how the box was ****** up, it's really funny. So is that article on IGN. I sawa vid of Forza (from E3) and it sucked, laguna wasn't even close to GT3 let alone GT4.

edit:

http://www.red-mercury.com/mmceo/mmceo_current.html