- 2,414
Don't do me any favors, go ahead and report it. As you can see I IMMEDIATELY put delete me and edited as appropriate. Go ahead do whatever floats your boat.
FM Vs GT - Discussion Thread (read the first post before you post)
- Thread starter Scaff
- 8,743 comments
- 564,908 views
Don't do me any favors, go ahead and report it. As you can see I IMMEDIATELY put delete me and edited as appropriate. Go ahead do whatever floats your boat.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,994
- Texas
I never said you were to begin with. However, you brought up a stupid comparison when you are well aware of the development time behind 1 car for GT5 & 1 car for Forza.I guess, that I wasn't wrong after all...
- 563
Their were clearly more than 16 cars on that track.👍
About the dails not working on the cars.. every single one was patched. The Dlc cars also did not have "Improved interiors" over the existing models in fm3. Total bullcrap.👎
Forza interiors are pretty good after the multiscreen adjustment. After all i'de rather have a less detailed cockpit THAN NON AT ALL.
Hahaha Gt5 only has 200 cockpits what a fail that was when all those Gt fans first heard about premiums and standards. hahaha im still lolling when i go back too those threads. Gt5 dugg its own hole and FM4 is just going take a big dump on it afterwards. Gt5 doesnt even simulate broken glass. It only has Play-doh damage. The damage on standards is just criminal. You must be mad tha FM4 is right around the corner and Dlc for GT5 is nooo way in sight. Not even rumored. I feel your pain...lolz
So much for your premiums and you know what fm4 will do once its out..
Last edited by a moderator:
- 1,732
- cuco33
The standard vs premium thing has been discussed to death and it's not just lacking cockpits in 80% of them... it's a lot more than that. Older (and poorer) models to not accessing certain photo modes to not accessing wheel 'upgrades' (visual only) to even some mods I believe can't be done. The more you talk about them, the worse it gets. I'd still have the standards with these issues though... but I really don't like that I can't put BBS RS wheels on a mk1 VW Rabbit GTI, or that I can't take this car and bring it over to photo travel locations, or the fact that the car model looks early last gen with all the jagged edges from the rear hatch to the text in the license plate and 2D textures like the headlamps.
Personally, the only gripe I got with FM4 that we know of is this car disparity of not all cars will be in this AutoVista mode... but like in all other Forzas EVERY car will have the same options/features outside of this AutoVista mode.
Personally, the only gripe I got with FM4 that we know of is this car disparity of not all cars will be in this AutoVista mode... but like in all other Forzas EVERY car will have the same options/features outside of this AutoVista mode.
I'm well aware of that, but my gripe with FM3 is that their cockpits are extremely flawed in some cases, something that needs to be pointed out, for example there are cars like the Honda fit and the Nissan SUPER GT which have cockpits that looks from previous generations.
There is not denial that GT5 cockpit looks better, and there is also not denial that FM3 has more cockpits, there is a quality vs quantity issue here. My gripe with all of this is that the quality in some of the cockpits on FM3 is far from acceptable, regardless of their development time.
Also, why did you guys bring the whole Premium vs Standard argument again, I also pointed out that it was pretty pointless, I don't get it, since the initial argument was the frame rate.
Last edited:
dylansan
Premium
- 5,037
- Massachusetts
- GTP_dylansan
- MINICOOPER120
Reported. We don't need this kind of biased, insulting "argument" here. You can raise points like this without making statements like "FM4 is just going to take a big dump on it." Grow up please. 👎Their were clearly more than 16 cars on that track.👍
About the dails not working on the cars.. every single one was patched. The Dlc cars also did not have "Improved interiors" over the existing models in fm3. Total bullcrap.👎
Forza interiors are pretty good after the multiscreen adjustment. After all i'de rather have a less detailed cockpit THAN NON AT ALL.
Hahaha Gt5 only has 200 cockpits what a fail that was when all those Gt fans first heard about premiums and standards. hahaha im still lolling when i go back too those threads. Gt5 dugg its own hole and FM4 is just going take a big dump on it afterwards. Gt5 doesnt even simulate broken glass. It only has Play-doh damage. The damage on standards is just criminal. You must be mad tha FM4 is right around the corner and Dlc for GT5 is nooo way in sight. Not even rumored. I feel your pain...lolz
So much for your premiums and you know what fm4 will do once its out..
And that first photo does not represent GT5's graphics at all. Let me take an actual one an come back to show you.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 1,846
- Arizona
- maxpontiac
Man, that GTR comparison shot is bad. Hotspitta, you should have never used that.
- 10,403
- GTP_Spag69
- spagetti69
akiraacecombat
haven't played GT in a long time. I do remember the lotus Elise looking like vassaline had been smeared over the gauges.
I dont think they spent 6 months on that one.
Just saying.
Would it be fair to say if PD wanted 600 cockpits in the same time frame they needed. Cockpit details may have had to be dialed down by a third.
I love GTs cockpits overall. I just think they bit of more than they could chew.
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
- 10,403
- GTP_Spag69
- spagetti69
You should see more cockpit mate.
Maybe change your viewing angle to the opposite you originally set.
I just run default cam but I did try it once so I know it works.
Maybe change your viewing angle to the opposite you originally set.
I just run default cam but I did try it once so I know it works.
- 672
- Toulouse
- TheHBK
- HBK Live
It is a catastrophe to some, it would seem. If you can't see tearing, good for you. I may suggest you pay a visit to an ophthalmologist, however.
And it's not really a matter of numbers. It's a matter of stable framerate and/or screen tearing. 50fps is fine in theory. But even now, with still 60hz synced displays, either you keep v-sync, and the 50fps is not "stable", or you disable v-sync, and you get screen tearing.
I don't give a damn about what is displayed if the game does not maintain a stable and sufficient frame rate. Very much like I don't give a damn about how good a game is if I have to suffer 50s loading screens frequently. These are some of the basic "features" that should be GRANTED. If a game can't get it done, it fails at one of its most basic purposes, which is not to give me headaches.
- 2,414
Simple, because for me GT5 only has 200 cars. That's the point. I don't drive in anything but cockpit view in any game. Once I got a taste of cockpit view I never went back and I refuse to even to accommodate some "great" game. There's only one exception to the cockpit view and that's the Peugeot R1 car. The cockpit view, as in real life, is brutal. You really have to know a track like you were born on it to get around in that thing. But if I really put more time into it I could get that view down also.
- 218
Forza looks a lot smoother than GT5, particularly without the screen jumping around everywhere trying to emulate a feeling of speed where there just isn't one to be emulated.
60fps and lesser detail in Forza was a decision taken early on to improve the experience of actually driving the car. Most dedicated training simulators don't really bother with great visuals despite costing millions of pounds, because they just aren't necessary. Indeed, I found my experience of GT5 really quite tarnished after playing FM3 as unfortunatly my Silvia's left indicator lense had 200,000 polygons and rendering that alone had the PS3 chugging through treacle compared to the rock solid smoothness I had experienced in Forza.
The reason this tarnished my experience is because actually, apart from a couple of details and the terrible lighting system, the graphics in Forza aren't (shock, horror) that bad. Infact I reckon that in a lot of situations they are better in FM3 than they are in GT5. So yeah, rock solid, smooth but less shiny graphics for me ta, you can keep the (inconsistent) bling. They get FM4 running 60fps with the new lighting and more cars on track and I'll be a very happy camper.
On the subject of features, anyone else kind of get the feeling that playing FM3 and then playing GT5 feels like all the toys keep being taken taken out of the playground between recesses? Play Forza with the storefronts, tuning, livery editor, leaderboards, vinyl creator etc. It's like having a swing set, roundabout, see saw, jungle gym, rope bridge etc. Then play GT5 with it's grinding about in circles until you wear your wheel out. It's a bit like having just the see saw... With one of the seats sawn off. But hey, PD did their own thing and that's to be applauded. Maybe just listen to the gamers and take the blinkers off next time, eh Kaz?
60fps and lesser detail in Forza was a decision taken early on to improve the experience of actually driving the car. Most dedicated training simulators don't really bother with great visuals despite costing millions of pounds, because they just aren't necessary. Indeed, I found my experience of GT5 really quite tarnished after playing FM3 as unfortunatly my Silvia's left indicator lense had 200,000 polygons and rendering that alone had the PS3 chugging through treacle compared to the rock solid smoothness I had experienced in Forza.
The reason this tarnished my experience is because actually, apart from a couple of details and the terrible lighting system, the graphics in Forza aren't (shock, horror) that bad. Infact I reckon that in a lot of situations they are better in FM3 than they are in GT5. So yeah, rock solid, smooth but less shiny graphics for me ta, you can keep the (inconsistent) bling. They get FM4 running 60fps with the new lighting and more cars on track and I'll be a very happy camper.
On the subject of features, anyone else kind of get the feeling that playing FM3 and then playing GT5 feels like all the toys keep being taken taken out of the playground between recesses? Play Forza with the storefronts, tuning, livery editor, leaderboards, vinyl creator etc. It's like having a swing set, roundabout, see saw, jungle gym, rope bridge etc. Then play GT5 with it's grinding about in circles until you wear your wheel out. It's a bit like having just the see saw... With one of the seats sawn off. But hey, PD did their own thing and that's to be applauded. Maybe just listen to the gamers and take the blinkers off next time, eh Kaz?
- 1,732
- cuco33
It's funny you bring up the Honda Fit since in GT5 there are no cockpit views in either the 2001 street version nor the SPOON race version since both models are standards. I also wouldn't be going much off of a compressed youtube video as proof either since the reviewer was dead wrong on a lot of what he said. I mean his rant on the storefront being pointless is laughable and if you actually tried it out legitimately it shows how awesome it is, just one example of many. The SuperGT cockpits are OK in terms of model and they don't hold a candle to GT5's versions. You have to adjust the view angle to get a much better view out the windshield which is dug deep in the menu system but the real flaw is the fact that the gauges don't work at all. Since shifting animations were patched in, I don't know why T10 didn't patch in working gauges.
Premium vs Standard argument is NOT pointless by any means. That's where the bulk of the game's content is, between cars and tracks, and the fact is majority of the game is ported work. Even 'new' cars to the series didn't even get the premium touch, like the Veyron. There are people who didn't buy the game solely because not all cars have a cockpit view. The quality vs quantity argument isn't there with GT5 since 80% don't even have cockpits, meaning 80% of the car quantity have 0 quality in this field. The 20% that are there are stunning, without a doubt. I just hate this disparity and normally I don't race in cockpit view. It's not being able to modify cars to premium extent (i.e. wheels, which for some stupid reason you get 0 advantage by going with a lightweight race wheel over stock heavy cast wheels) and not being able to take cars to the extra photo locations that gripes me. I lived in Italy for 9 months so I'd love to take some of my favorite cars, most standards, to these locations for some pics. I'm into the VWs and Audis and as VAG fan you know that the BBS RS wheel is THE iconic wheel. Practically most real world modified mk1 VW Rabbit GTIs have the RS wheel (or similar like the RM) and yet I can't even do this... but hey... I can slap an RS wheel on a car with wheel diameter's that BBS never made the RS in, and should actually be the SuperRS model (w/different lips). That's not even mentioning the lack of wider wheel options and their affects in performance/tire wear/grip.
Two points, the first one will be that PD never claimed a 60fps experience,
So, the frame rate is related to the amount of premium cars in the sense that...
Opinions doesn't count at the time of determinate facts, unless such opinions are correct in a factual arguable way.
@cuco33
You are bringing again the whole issue, which is not related to frame rates.
@430_Riviera
Partially agreed.
Last edited:
- 4,440
- zr1chris
- zr1chris
That's a pretty silly question isn't it? How was he supposed to know that would happen?
- 1,732
- cuco33
I've seen more dips in framerate and tearing with GT5 on a few different displays. I think it still looks great and plays great. Under certain situations, premiums in photo travel look sexy real. In motion it still looks phenomenal. I just hate when the polish outweighs the performance.
- 593
- Lohmar, Germany
- jabofu
- DAG JaboFu
Pointless. In my eyes this is the only argument we need to dismiss GT5. So now you say PD never said that there will be 60 fps at all time? I heard it otherwise, K.Y. clearly said in interviews that they deliver the 60 fps, but that it can get a bit down in rain or with many many cars together.
Again the Standard vs Premium alone makes GT5 lose in this battle. PD never heard what the fans want, they never showed us how they do things. They just give a damn about us.
- 672
- Toulouse
- TheHBK
- HBK Live
Thing is, in its current state, I think I would have preferred GT5 to choose the rock solid 30fps way (adding things like decent shadows) than the inconsistent mess of trying to get as much fps as possible in a stupid numbers race at the expense of stability, hampering the overall experience.
And that would actually perfectly summarize my overall feeling about GT5, a game desperately ticking boxes and growing numbers without ever thinking about how it would affect the experience.
And that would actually perfectly summarize my overall feeling about GT5, a game desperately ticking boxes and growing numbers without ever thinking about how it would affect the experience.
- 10,403
- GTP_Spag69
- spagetti69
zanxion
IMHO GT broke that rule after being released after Forza 3.
So, I keep reading about how GT5 loses the battle because of the whole standard/premium car thing.
It seem that what rarely gets a mention is that FM has been using many of the same car models since FM1.
If you don't believe me, then you only have to look at the car model flaws that have followed the game through its versions.
I would hazard a guess that they were initially rendered at a quality to high for xbox and then scaled down for use in the first game and then they use the same "Parent" model for the following games.
The only "new" models in FM3 were the dlc cars and it shows as they are (mostly) much better models. There are some whose proportions are still incorrect and probably modelled from diecast cars
I expect to see those same flaws in Forza 4 and in fact far less "new" car models than GT5 has premiums.
It seem that what rarely gets a mention is that FM has been using many of the same car models since FM1.
If you don't believe me, then you only have to look at the car model flaws that have followed the game through its versions.
I would hazard a guess that they were initially rendered at a quality to high for xbox and then scaled down for use in the first game and then they use the same "Parent" model for the following games.
The only "new" models in FM3 were the dlc cars and it shows as they are (mostly) much better models. There are some whose proportions are still incorrect and probably modelled from diecast cars
I expect to see those same flaws in Forza 4 and in fact far less "new" car models than GT5 has premiums.
- 8,725
That video confirms my own experiences. More than 90% of the time, GT5 doesn't tear at all at a 60 Hz "capture" rate. It tears the most at the start of the race, and any other time there are lots of cars on screen, close together. Thus, it could do with a proper, load-based dynamic LoD system. Actually, I really like Rage's solution; it drops the resolution if a frame starts getting late (tearing), and puts it back up as the buffers re-sync - apparently it doesn't take much scaling to get the frame back, so it's barely noticeable, especially in the middle of action. Now, I suspect GT5's problems are more a geometry throughput issue, which may not scale with screen resolution. Hence a dynamic LoD bias (probably ugly), or variable LoD transition distances (probably less so, if you can avoid levels flickering in and out), adjusted according to the lateness of the frame, may be the way to go. Of course, that's a decent modification to the render pipeline. But I admit, I don't know why games generally don't do this these days, especially given the maturity in landscape LoD scaling (see "Frame Coherence", "GeoMorphing" etc. as well as general things like "Occlusion Culling" etc.)
Additionally, screen tearing is always going to be more of an issue on 50 Hz displays for a game running at 60 Hz. V-Sync will cause the frame-rate to swap between 60 and 30 Hz depending on the exact synchronisation between console and display, so you'd think they'd offer a 50 Hz output mode. I can't test this, sadly. If there is no 50 Hz mode, I'd take the tearing without v-sync over the stuttering with it any day.
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,884
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
In the exact same way that your own comment here is pointless.
If you don't have anything constructive to add to a thread then don't post; what is not acceptable is posting simply to have a dig at those that do have a contribution to make.
Continue in this manner and you will not be contributing to anything at GT Planet.
Scaff
- 713
- UK
AN interestingish point. I don't know of many TV's these days that actually framerate convert 1080p60 to 1080p50 for display, I'm sure some will, but I'd wager that all the larger players (Samsung/Sony/Toshiba) will accept and display 50 or 60Hz material natively. My Toshiba LCD does at home, and that's 3 years old.. My TV is labelled 100Hz, but it also does 5:5 pulldown for 24fps blu-rays, which can only be done at 120Hz, so used a PC to test 1080p50 and 1080p60 to find it handles both natively via HDMI..
There is also the issue of processing, some TV's do temporal processing in HD (and that varies massively), so some screen tearing may be slightly masked or not so obvious on some, but I can say that my 28" PC Monitor (used for GT5/FM3) which has no processing at all, the tearing is very evident in bumper cam on many circuits, and it seems to be track geometry related (always does it in the same places generally, independant of the number of cars) when I notice it most.
I'd gladly have accepted some 'glitz' being removed for a near as damn it rock solid 60fps..
IMO, you can tell that GT5 adds more glitz but is happy to drop frames quite often and has a good LOD system in play, but FM3 seems to have a much dumber LOD and it's grpahical flourishes are set to satisfy the lowest common demoninator..
Neither is a 'winner', just different compromises..
- 8,725
If a given display device supports 60 Hz, then it's fine. I was talking more about the game / the console itself; I don't know if it can output at 50 Hz for those displays that do need it.
I've noticed the track-related slowdowns, too. That should be much easier to fix, but the massive range of camera angles, and the penchant for high-and-wide-shots, probably makes any "portal" or "quake-like" culling methods utterly pointless. It'd all have to be real-time, so I suspect we're only getting (distance-based) LoD-scaling and view-frustum culling (maybe with additional clipping planes for larger static objects.)
Being able to dynamically scale the LoD (as opposed to LoD being distance- / pixel-footprint-based only) to keep the total number of polygons on-screen roughly constant could help massively. As it stands, it seems the slowdown is caused by excessive numbers of polygons due to, at its worst, a combination of too many high-detail cars in-view and overly geometrically complex areas of the track.
Screen-tear is a great measure of in-frame performance, and it can be used to move the LoD blend distances (i.e. dynamically bringing the lower detail levels in closer to the camera) for all objects; cars and track-side. It may look ugly if you notice it, so ideally any pop would be minimised (geomorphing-style, perhaps - a benefit in itself), but rock-solid frame rate is more important anyway. Maybe there are architectural reasons this stuff can't happen outside of a major update.
- 713
- UK
OK, but I don't think any displays really need it these days, in terms of HD LCD/Plasma, I don't think their is any constraint of fixing a 50Hz real refresh rate as per the old CRT Days, and thinking about it, I'd have said screen tearing isn't a known artefact of any known (to me) basic 60-50Hz conversion systems anyway?, they just drop frames, it's the same principle (I believe) for NTSC video on PAL tv's, the artefact was micro-stuttering due to dropped frames. Well, technically some early PAL TV's that would kind of accept NTSC video 'blindly' just used to have horrific rolling/screen tearing/black screens.. I am talking about the later CRT's that at least buffered the input digitally for conversion..
With regards to the discussion of tearing, Digital Foundry at Eurogamer use the correct equipment to analyse this, and it's there, it's been quantified, it exists, it is far from perfect, and far from the mess that some modern games are..
Last edited:
- 351
Yeah, your still one of those that compare Forza 3 with GT5. Keep on dreaming buddy, it may become true...
