FM Vs GT - Discussion Thread (read the first post before you post)

[phil-t]

iRacing, despite lacking some eye candy, is actually pretty photo-realistic in its colorimetry and lighting conditions.

It was pretty photo-realistic, even at launch. Although I was more stunned by how much it reminded me of NASCAR 2003 and, consequently, GPL.
Now they do colour correction on every texture they use (by photographing colour cards next to track features) and use colour-correct lighting, so it's even better. It is lacking in "flair" but you could say that about the whole experience...

I totally agree, and always have that GT5's colorimetry is very good indeed, and indeed, iRacing's on a technical level is even better, that goes without question, but (and the same goes for iRacing), colorimetry is one small aspect of photo-realism, and it's almost everywhere else that the games fall down.

The crux for me personally (and it's all personal preference) is that I can't think of a single 'wow' moment when actually playing GT5 in-race from the graphics being remotely photo-realistic. The colours may all be pretty accurate to real life, but the contrast/toning/shading/texture detail and a million other things just never ever ever make me think this is anything other then a game.. (Same for iRacing, awesome game, my yardstick for most aspects of simulation, but it always looks very much a game whilst I'm playing it)
In FM3, the colorimetry may be poorer to real life, but like movies/tv etc, my eyes get used to this somewhat and my brain half accepts it, and it's then all the other little things that add up to make my brain think "this isn't too bad", notably it's the level of texture detail trackside and scenery that I personally prefer, or coming over the crest in Iberia when the valley vista is then in full view with just enough detail to at least make it stand out in my mind.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't ever think FM3 is photo-realistic either, but whilst actually playing in-race, there are plenty of moments that stand out to me as being more then agreeable..

Conversely, when I'm playing iRacing or GT5, in-race, the lack of a lot of standout detail to my eyes just does nothing for me (obviously).. The only time I ever see anything remotely standout and what I might class as more photo-realistic is photo-mode and replays, in fact anywhere where the lack of detail is masked by focal blur, or the odd time the framing of the image has isolated just enough detail to pass for being photo-realistic (the LFA on the Nurb is awesome).

So this is why when people go on about photo-realism, to me personally it only seems to be replay/photo-mode this occurs to any real degree, especially in GT5, gameplay has the poor res standard cars, the flickering shadows, the pretty low contrast/detail texturing and general low rent look to many tracks that makes it a pretty jarring experience, and hence why I always come to the conclusion that people that harp on about GT5's photo-realism as being really important must class the replay/photo mode as being really important (And hence why most show photomode/replay shots) and hence lean towards gameplay over graphics. Perhaps you aren't in this camp, I was just generalising, and it's all personal perference again..

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

with the selection Forza has just by pure wide spread dealerships and not several models of one car, I think turn 10 is starting to look at things a different way like PD did with GT2 and GT3. So FM4 is looking good, I just hope they put as much work into the physics engine as they did with obtaining so many different manufactures.

 

[bullet360]

Its what i've been saying since day one. The game is as terrible as it is beautiful. Not as perfect as gt fanboys say it is... Not as useless as xbox fanboys say it is... And i find myself glad that im not picky about what i like. Im just happy the damn game is compatiable with online gameplay, And honestly, Stick the standard ford gt with the premium side by side... The exteriors look damn identicle, its your perception if the standard looks as good as the premium, or the premium looks just as bad as the standard... You choose...

 

[Luminis]

Stick the standard ford gt with the premium side by side... The exteriors look damn identicle, its your perception if the standard looks as good as the premium, or the premium looks just as bad as the standard...

Excuse me for being rude but... I think you're supposed to be sober while driving, right?
Just kidding, but, really? What kind of perception does it take to not notice the difference between a standard and a premium car?

 

[VXR]

Auto Modelista deserves a HD update, even if it's only XBLA/PSN.

 

[Griffith500]

...

For me, lighting is the single most important thing for photorealism. Get the lighting right, and any object you put in that light will look like it's "real" (i.e. it exists), no matter how outlandish its texturing or shading. Every game has its little graphical foibles that spoil the impression, that remind you it's just a game, but most games have at least the occasional moment where you are stunned by how realistic (true-to-life) it looks. GT5 does do this, even in "gameplay", primarily because of the lighting and the incredible detail on the Premium cars - sunrise is a particular highlight. FM3 has its moments, too, but the lighting model is usually too far off for most situations, for me.

This is presumably why Forza 4 has moved to image-based lighting. It's hard to get more accurate than a high-dynamic range (tone-mapped) image of a real 360° sky and / or environment in terms of total lighting. Global illumination is a difficult problem in real-time CG, and image-based lighting is a fantastically elegant partial solution for static scenes.
Assuming FM4 doesn't have dynamic time of day, there is the potential for the lighting to be even better than GT5's. For example, the green bleed through a tree canopy can be "baked in" for FM4's tracks, whilst in GT5's dynamic tracks this is not really possible without some supporting real-time GI stuff, which is insanely expensive, even with clever tricks.

 

[HBK]

I may be repeating myself, but I pretty much agree with what Griffith500 says. Lighting and colorimetry is a *very* important aspect of "photorealism".

 

[phil-t]

For me, lighting is the single most important thing for photorealism. Get the lighting right, and any object you put in that light will look like it's "real" (i.e. it exists), no matter how outlandish its texturing or shading.

I may be repeating myself, but I pretty much agree with what Griffith500 says. Lighting and colorimetry is a *very* important aspect of "photorealism".

That's OK, I can respect those opinions, I just don't share it, since my personal preference is clearly different.. but I've not disagreed that colorimetry is technically one factor in realism..

As a side note, 'photorealism' is nice, but the reality is, Both photo's and even current display technology suffers from terrible dynamic range compared to your eyes as well as trouble recreating accurate colours etc, so although it's about as good as you can get, it's still not real life accurate..

 

[HBK]

As a side note, 'photorealism' is nice, but the reality is, Both photo's and even current display technology suffers from terrible dynamic range compared to your eyes as well as trouble recreating accurate colours etc, so although it's about as good as you can get, it's still not real life accurate.

I very much agree with that 👍

A camera is far for being an eye in terms of "optical sensor capabilities". But still, the term "photorealism" pretty much means "it looks real". And yes, on a screen (because video games are played on screens), "looking real" pretty much means "looking like a photo".

Thus we have looped, I guess

 

[Griffith500]

Agreed. Although, what with all this "square eyes" malarkey, I doubt we'll be seeing HDR display devices for general use. Imagine the power of the sun (at 150 million km) in your front room... (Oh wait, it's called a window... )

 

[Vaxxtx]

So people really are finding replays and photo's important?

I have a hard time grasping that. Watching replays are fun I agree, but taking photo's of a car in a game just cant hold my interest. Especially in GT5, since the car you taking a photo of, looks just like all the others since you cannot cutomize it at all. I dont get the draw... So if you can take a picture of a car...in a game...and it look almost like real life, what is the point? I mean you can go t oa dealership and snap some photos and it will look good as well. Why do people like doing it in a game?

As long as the game looks great while driving. As long as the tracks look like a track and not a backdrop for a Disney movie. As long as cockpits look good. All that is what makes a racing game IMO. Shift2 nailed it IMO.

 

[t.o.]

Replays are big for me but if they're stuck on my console then they are pretty much useless. I'd like to be able to export the replays and make my own custom movies with them. Something you're able to do in FM3 but not in GT5. Sticking a camera in front of my TV is not my idea of 2011.

 

[HBK]

Why do people like doing it in a game?

Because they find it fun ? I know I don't. But some people do.

 

[JJ72]

Watching replays are fun I agree, but taking photo's of a car in a game just cant hold my interest. Especially in GT5, since the car you taking a photo of, looks just like all the others since you cannot cutomize it at all. I dont get the draw... So if you can take a picture of a car...in a game...and it look almost like real life, what is the point? I mean you can go t oa dealership and snap some photos and it will look good as well. Why do people like doing it in a game?

League racing reports, that's the reason 👍

And in photomode you have lighting conditions that you can't find just about everywhere. And hey it is also ALOT cheaper!

 

[Terronium-12]

Not to mention you can get angles and up-close shots during a race that you're not going to get anywhere else; no way, no how. Well, not without being ran over first.

Also there's the factor of the weather conditions always being right.

 

[Vaxxtx]

Not to mention you can get angles and up-close shots during a race that you're not going to get anywhere else; no way, no how. Well, not without being ran over first.

Also there's the factor of the weather conditions always being right.

Dont be a wuss. Get on that track with your digi cam. Whats the worst that can happen?

Good answers, but if a games photo mode is good, I see it as a bonus, not something I *need* in a race game.

 

[Terronium-12]

Someone said they needed it?

 

[Vaxxtx]

Someone said they needed it?

No, but some people were suggesting that it was a big part of a sim game. I said *I* dont need it. I was wondering why its a big deal to some folks, and why the argument over photo modes was even an issue.

 

[PzR Slim]

League racing reports, that's the reason 👍

And in photomode you have lighting conditions that you can't find just about everywhere. And hey it is also ALOT cheaper!

Replays and photos also very important for stewards enquiries in league racing 👍

 

[Bogie 19th]

Nobody NEEDS photomode, just like nobody NEEDS these racing games. People could just go race in real life, just like they could take photos in real life.

But people WANT photomode, and people WANT these racing games.

 

[Vaxxtx]

Nobody NEEDS photomode, just like nobody NEEDS these racing games. People could just go race in real life, just like they could take photos in real life.

But people WANT photomode, and people WANT these racing games.

Very insightful.

 

[Akira AC]

Not sure, but after seeing this, and plenty of other videos, it seems that FM4 cars quality doesn't match GT5's premiums.

The more I see this game, the more it looks to FM3.

 

[Vaxxtx]

Not sure, but after seeing this, and plenty of other videos, it seems that FM4 cars quality doesn't match GT5's premiums.

The more I see this game, the more it looks to FM3.

All games look different in videos than when you actually have it on your screen. Thats a rather badly recorded video anyway.

The Forza cars, even if not as good looking as GT5 premiums, would still trump the fact you dont have have standard vs premiums.

 

[Crispy]

I think having a feature to use a moving camera, as well as the base cameras. What I'm talking about is something similar to Halo's Theater. You can fly around in a camera, and set up your own shots. Sort of like photomode for replays. That way we can recreate RL camera angles. Like the panning one on Silverstone.

 

[McLaren]

Not sure, but after seeing this, and plenty of other videos, it seems that FM4 cars quality doesn't match GT5's premiums.

The more I see this game, the more it looks to FM3.

Lol, why are you even in this forum, then? You seem to only constantly be on the look out for ways to disagree with any pro-Forza posts, much like you were in the days leading up to GT5's release.

 

[Akira AC]

Lol, why are you even in this forum, then? You seem to only constantly be on the look out for ways to disagree with any pro-Forza posts, much like you were in the days leading up to GT5's release.

I just play both games, and came cross stuff that I don't like and stuff that is wrong in both games, I'm against the FM3 model and some aspects from GT5 model, that's what I'm truly against, addressing such things is wrong, discussing such things is wrong?

If you are not for the discussion, why are you even in this forum, then?

 

[Bogie 19th]

Very insightful.

I try. Common sense is easy.

Not sure, but after seeing this, and plenty of other videos, it seems that FM4 cars quality doesn't match GT5's premiums.

The more I see this game, the more it looks to FM3.

Oddly enough, I saw that same video a little bit ago before you posted it, and my first impression was, I can't believe they improved the car models so much over FM3. Video to video, I think FM4 takes the crown. The real judge for me at least, will be when I gave the game IN MY HANDS.

 

[Hotspitta]

Not sure, but after seeing this, and plenty of other videos, it seems that FM4 cars quality doesn't match GT5's premiums.

The more I see this game, the more it looks to FM3.

This time keep your eyes open.

FM3 vs FM4 Head to Head Nurb GP (Fm3 is modded full polygon mode)



599 GTO Alps. Black Ferrari's look gooooodd

 

[Akira AC]

This time keep your eyes open.

FM3 vs FM4 Head to Head Nurb GP (Fm3 is modded full polygon mode)

Just like the comparison with the photos, FM3 looks a lot brighter than that, not to mention the fact that is clearly recorded out of screen, which means that two different TV sets were used.

I wonder what is the utilities of these comparisons vids, since the polygons will not increase as much as you look at them, and geometries of course.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Yes, these comparisons only make sense when the same hardware is used and off-screen is a no go.