Getting tired of the 2D Scenery...

[GT Motion]

Good examples. But I need to mention, that Cote d´Azur is nearly a 1/1 conversion from GT4. And it looks a ugly as in GT4

But tracks like Nordschleife, Lemans, Trial Mountan, Tokio or Rom have nearly identical 2d tree scenarios. And in GTR2 ad iRacing, also not every tree/ tree group looks fantastic. Takeing your iRacing picture, I would bet that would it be a GT5 picture, a lot of people would start to cry for better 3D trees.

I think that's the problem for those older tracks, but tracks like cape ring have trees that as your driving down the street you see the 2D tree structure move into a flat piece of graphic, then you see tree walls that are like a wrapping paper with pictures of trees. Rather than individual 2d trees.

2D is not even a big issue when I think about it, its the wrapping paper look that I don't like.

 

[MowTin]

Getting tired of threads like this.

PD should make a special version of GT5 with ultra smooth shadows and super realistic 3D trees but the game runs at 5 frames per second just so that certain people can get it--limited resources--compromises are necessary to maintain framerate--get over it.

 

[GT Motion]

Getting tired of threads like this.

PD should make a special version of GT5 with ultra smooth shadows and super realistic 3D trees but the game runs at 5 frames per second just so that certain people can get it--limited resources--compromises are necessary to maintain framerate--get over it.

I am getting tired of responses like this. "Limited resources" is not an excuse. You act like PD didn't know what system they were building this for. They knew from the start what their resources were, and they have the best and worst graphics all in the same game.

The car looks beautiful, if its a premium, until I go to bumper cam and see nothing but 2d trees, water that has no movement, poorly made 2d spectators that have the same repeated characters with the same repeated motion all lined up, no randomness.

I really sound harsh in this thread, but I do love this game, however I feel like they half way did the surroundings.

 

[Lion-Face]

I am getting tired of responses like this. "Limited resources" is not an excuse. You act like PD didn't know what system they were building this for. They knew from the start what their resources were, and they have the best and worst graphics all in the same game.

The car looks beautiful, if its a premium, until I go to bumper cam and see nothing but 2d trees, water that has no movement, poorly made 2d spectators that have the same repeated characters with the same repeated motion all lined up, no randomness.

I really sound harsh in this thread, but I do love this game, however I feel like they half way did the surroundings.

3D trees would be great. What I don't like is when there appears to be wind effects, like blowing the dust you kick up to one side as you run off the road, yet the trees are absolutely still with no movement.

I thought this post was a great example...

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=162912&page=4#post4582207

It shows PD obviously know how to do trees, but when it comes down to getting the physics as good as they are, the cars looking as good as they do, multiple cars on track at once, something has to give, and its the trees which appear to take the first hit in detail.

I don't think anyone can argue that they don't want 3d trees, or better trees all round, I just think that in producing what PD has, they have to prioritize what can and can't be in. If compromises on graphical quality have to be made, I personally would rather have the game as it is, rather than better trees and less opponents, or worse looking cars.

 

[DylanWhite]

Just had a laugh through the thread posts. Yeah, the premium cars are excellent, couldn't be better. When I mentioned the PROPS specifically, I definitely meant the props, not the premium cars. I find this community very separated and hostile. Not sure what it is, but it sure does seem like wherever I look I see "elitists" here. I miss being a forum moderator for PR. Tight night group of several thousand strong. This will die soon enough, lucky if it got locked. Thread to nowhere.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Just had a laugh through the thread posts. Yeah, the premium cars are excellent, couldn't be better. When I mentioned the PROPS specifically, I definitely meant the props, not the premium cars. I find this community very separated and hostile. Not sure what it is, but it sure does seem like wherever I look I see "elitists" here. I miss being a forum moderator for PR. Tight night group of several thousand strong. This will die soon enough, lucky if it got locked. Thread to nowhere.

Well if you read the thread properly, you would see most of the arguments were about 3D trees and why they couldn't be put in.

If you are also on about making better 2D trees and spectators then show us taking into consideration the same polygon count as PD used. If PD took 5 minutes to make 2D props for the game, then it won't take you long will it to post proof. If you can back up your claims, then most of us on here will have no problems with you. Hostile behaviour you might be seeing towards yourself is due to posting unsubstantiated claims at the moment and insulting top professionals saying you could do a much better job in the same time period. At the moment, you are the only person showing elitism.

You won't be seeing me saying if I was in Sebastian Vettel's car in 2010 F1 World Championship, I would of done a better job and honestly believe it.

 

[MowTin]

I am getting tired of responses like this. "Limited resources" is not an excuse. You act like PD didn't know what system they were building this for. They knew from the start what their resources were, and they have the best and worst graphics all in the same game.

GT5 is obviously pushing the PS3 to the limit to get those car model running at 1080p 60fps.

If you want better 2D scenery you will have to scale back somewhere else. Would the game look better with your choices? Not really. Someone would complain about the compromises you chose.

You understand what I'm saying?

 

[Gaiajohan]

GT5 is obviously pushing the PS3 to the limit to get those car model running at 1080p 60fps.

If you want better 2D scenery you will have to scale back somewhere else. Would the game look better with your choices? Not really. Someone would complain about the compromises you chose.

You understand what I'm saying?

GT5 is NOT running at 1080p. It's 'just' 1280*1080. Nor is it running at a steady 60 fps.

 

[the Interceptor]

I agree with the sentiment that GT5 is somewhat "unbalanced" graphics-wise. It makes sense, too, when you look at how much work they invested into the car models. That leaves less computing power for the surroundings, so the super-detailed cars might look a bit out of place here and there.

That said, I am not sure whether I would want less detailed car models only to have better-looking tracks. One part of me sure does because I don't see much of my car (if anything) while racing. The other part admires the beauty of the premium cars and how real they often look. And still, my overall conclusion is the wish that they had focused a little less on car details and had polished the rest of the graphics just as much. Maybe a slightly less detailed car model for racing and a high-detail model for menus and replays would have done the job.

 

[risuku13]

Getting tired of threads like this.

PD should make a special version of GT5 with ultra smooth shadows and super realistic 3D trees but the game runs at 5 frames per second just so that certain people can get it--limited resources--compromises are necessary to maintain framerate--get over it.

What he said. In some points, we have to admit that the PS3 is an ageing console.

 

[Big Ron]

3D trees would be great. What I don't like is when there appears to be wind effects, like blowing the dust you kick up to one side as you run off the road, yet the trees are absolutely still with no movement.

I thought this post was a great example...

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=162912&page=4#post4582207

It shows PD obviously know how to do trees, but when it comes down to getting the physics as good as they are, the cars looking as good as they do, multiple cars on track at once, something has to give, and its the trees which appear to take the first hit in detail.

I don't think anyone can argue that they don't want 3d trees, or better trees all round, I just think that in producing what PD has, they have to prioritize what can and can't be in. If compromises on graphical quality have to be made, I personally would rather have the game as it is, rather than better trees and less opponents, or worse looking cars.

GT5 has a lot of tracks with 3d trees, if you want to see 3d, just use this circuits.

And you don´t need a lot of wind to blow away dust and smoke. You can do it by yourself blowing, but also yo wouldn´t be able to bring a tweak to swing.

What I mean is, that the less wind which can blow away dust and smoke wouldn´t be able the swing trees.

But of course it would be fantastic to see swinging trees.

I want to give another example from iRacing, where you cn the the newest track Spa. And there, you have tree groups in same quality as GT5. Not worse or better. You also can see a wall taped with a tree texture and standalone 2d trees.



But never heard somebody claiming about it.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Getting tired of threads like this.

PD should make a special version of GT5 with ultra smooth shadows and super realistic 3D trees but the game runs at 5 frames per second just so that certain people can get it--limited resources--compromises are necessary to maintain framerate--get over it.

The point is all devs work on the same console. They find a way of maintaining quality up to it's limits. PD seem to have just been happy once they reached those limits saying 'well this will just have to do'.

Remember when they first started on development, the PS3 wasn't old tech with limited resources, it was a CPU that blew away anything else out there and a GPU in the higher-midrange level.

I think the worse decision was 16 cars on track. When the AI is that unconvincing the only cars that matter are the top 3 or 4. I would sooner have had 6 cars on track with 3 times the resources for their AI and the graphical resources of the 10 other cars spent on track detail.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

The point is all devs work on the same console. They find a way of maintaining quality up to it's limits. PD seem to have just been happy once they reached those limits saying 'well this will just have to do'.

Remember when they first started on development, the PS3 wasn't old tech with limited resources, it was a CPU that blew away anything else out there and a GPU in the higher-midrange level.

I think the worse decision was 16 cars on track. When the AI is that unconvincing the only cars that matter are the top 3 or 4. I would sooner have had 6 cars on track with 3 times the resources for their AI and the graphical resources of the 10 other cars spent on track detail.

PD are one of the few developers on the PS3 to push the PS3 past its limits of what many thought achievable. I'm suprised how they managed to maintain such a high quality in car detail, track surface while pushing all the effects. No other PS3 game has impressed me as much as GT5 has in terms of pushing the console.

The PS3 graphically was very weak when launched (GPU is about on par with the 360, or slightly less powerful), the top PC graphics cards available then were about twice as powerful. It was a mid-range card at best. Mid-range PC graphics cards you can buy now for the PC are about 300% more powerful, if not much more.

The Cell processor is very fast for certain tasks. PD seemed to make close to full use of it to get GT5 looking good as it does and with the effects.

I think there would be a bigger uproar if there was only 6 cars on a track.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

PD are one of the few developers on the PS3 to push the PS3 past its limits of what many thought achievable. I'm suprised how they managed to maintain such a high quality in car detail, track surface while pushing all the effects. No other PS3 game has impressed me as much as GT5 has in terms of pushing the console.

The PS3 graphically was very weak when launched (GPU is about on par with the 360, or slightly less powerful), the top PC graphics cards available then were about twice as powerful. It was a mid-range card at best. Mid-range PC graphics cards you can buy now for the PC are about 300% more powerful, if not much more.

The Cell processor is very fast for certain tasks. PD seemed to make close to full use of it to get GT5 looking good as it does and with the effects.

I think there would be a bigger uproar if there was only 6 cars on a track.

But we all knew what it was capable in 2006 when they gave us GT:HD. And visually in terms of pure aesthetics GT5 hasn't moved things on it's in fact taken some steps backwards in order to deliver technically complex features. No part has left me thinking wow I can't believe they've done this on a PS3 in the same way the original GT did on the PSOne.

As for the GPU, back in November 2006 when the PS3 was released it was in fact still a higher end GPU. It was December before the Geforce 8800 GTX superceded it which yes offered 50-100% better performance but that was an enthusiast level card at around £500. The PS3 GPU based on the 7 series was still upper mid range and better than your typical gaming PC at the time.

 

[Big Ron]

I thank god, that we have up to 16 cars on track. Even when the AI is not competable, but online you have a real race atmosphere.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

But we all knew what it was capable in 2006 when they gave us GT:HD. And visually in terms of pure aesthetics GT5 hasn't moved things on it's in fact taken some steps backwards in order to deliver technically complex features. No part has left me thinking wow I can't believe they've done this on a PS3 in the same way the original GT did on the PSOne.

As for the GPU, back in November 2006 when the PS3 was released it was in fact still a higher end GPU. It was December before the Geforce 8800 GTX superceded it which yes offered 50-100% better performance but that was an enthusiast level card at around £500. The PS3 GPU based on the 7 series was still upper mid range and better than your typical gaming PC at the time.

But we all knew what it was capable in 2006 when they gave us GT:HD. And visually in terms of pure aesthetics GT5 hasn't moved things on it's in fact taken some steps backwards in order to deliver technically complex features. No part has left me thinking wow I can't believe they've done this on a PS3 in the same way the original GT did on the PSOne.

As for the GPU, back in November 2006 when the PS3 was released it was in fact still a higher end GPU. It was December before the Geforce 8800 GTX superceded it which yes offered 50-100% better performance but that was an enthusiast level card at around £500. The PS3 GPU based on the 7 series was still upper mid range and better than your typical gaming PC at the time.

They gone much further since GT HD. They have added cockpit view, more cars on track, weather and realistic smoke effects and day and night cycle. They could cut all that for the marginally better scenery if you wished but I think people will prefer all these features much more. It doesn't stop GT5 for being, one of the most technically advanced game on the PS3 even if it doesn't give you the wow factor. It does for many who can appreciate how far they pushed to get it to that level. I can't see what else they could do to achieve a higher level and the correct decisions seemed to have been made when they did the cost-benefit analysis.

I just can't wait to see what they can do with hardware that is much more powerful. They will show the skills that many people are doubting and probably will create best scenery of any racing game, or game period.

By the way, the 8 series launched on November 2006 and the 8800GTX retailed around £400. The PS3 GPU was on the performance levels of the 7800GTX/7900GTX. Sony should of really changed the GPU to be based of the 8800GTS 320mb as the console was already delayed and ended up shipping a console with a GPU less advanced than the 360 and just as old.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

In all honesty I don't care about the technical stuff. I'm not a programmer so I have not appreciation of the challenge (not to say I don't understand it) but I have eyes and I know aesthetics and PD compromised the aesthetics to deliver a technical show cases.

It's like music. I'm a musician and I'm rather fond of the technical side of it. I like music with odd timings, clever harmonics and polyrhythms etc.. but your average person wants to listen to Take That.

As for what they will do with the next gen, what's going to be any different from this one, or the one before? Every time a new console comes out it brings with it significant resources over the old one. The PS3 has the resources to make everything so much better than the PS2 games and PD went nuts on the car modelling without the same leap for everything else.

And aye my 8 series date was wrong, I'm not actually sure where I got the December date from.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

In all honesty I don't care about the technical stuff. I'm not a programmer so I have not appreciation of the challenge (not to say I don't understand it) but I have eyes and I know aesthetics and PD compromised the aesthetics to deliver a technical show cases.

It's like music. I'm a musician and I'm rather fond of the technical side of it. I like music with odd timings, clever harmonics and polyrhythms etc.. but your average person wants to listen to Take That.

As for what they will do with the next gen, what's going to be any different from this one, or the one before? Every time a new console comes out it brings with it significant resources over the old one. The PS3 has the resources to make everything so much better than the PS2 games and PD went nuts on the car modelling without the same leap for everything else.

And aye my 8 series date was wrong, I'm not actually sure where I got the December date from.

They balanced the look very well IMO. Most game developers on the PS3 wouldn't have been able to achieve the scenery and car detail PD managed to. The balancing act you mention would only make the game look worse, the scenery would look marginally better while the cars would less worse and the effects would be even more primitive looking. PS3 games have to run at a much higher resolution than PS2 games so the generation leap was not that big.

This is an article that might help you understand that the visuals they achieved were more or less as good as it can ever be on the PS3.

http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/12/tech-analysis-gran-turismo-5.html

Finally the next-gen machines will give an equal footing for most as pretty much every game developer would be trying to achieve 1920x1080 at 60fps with high levels of anti-aliasing. PD are already doing it on the PS3 at 1280x1080 at close to 60FPS with quite good levels of AA. Next-gen consoles will allow them to improve everything to look photo-realstic while other developers games wouldn't look that much better than this gen. The resolution of TVs will most likely stick to full hd for many years. Think of the generational leap as between PS1 and PS2. That is why next-gen will be so much better than this.

 

[Menown]

Wait, there is scenery!? I'm usually too busy driving my nuts off.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Opinions over if the aesthetic compromises are acceptable given the machines limitations and the games technical achievements aside as obviously the two camps are never going to agree. The fact is that on the right section of track, with the right cars, and a willingness to overlook the lego shadows the game looks awesome. Driving on the Nurburgring is epic, it's visually convincing and you can tell they've been clever with their resources for drawing the track. Driving round the Eigernordwand with it's scenic view and 3D animated spectators shows that with a bit of resource juggling the game can deliver a generational leap over the PS2 games.

But when you catch a glimpse of the shortfalls of the game, arguing that it's because of the PS3 doesn't hold mustard, it's because they didn't go for the most visually appealing method they went brute force or just didn't bother. The smoke effects on GT:HD and Prologue didn't cause the aliasing that they do in GT5, it doesn't matter that GT5 is using a more technically complicated way of drawing them, they look worse. Same for the shadows. The courses that have ropey visuals, if they managed to get premium courses up to scratch then you have to consider that they just didn't optimise the normal courses.

 

[Big Ron]

The smoke effects on GT:HD and Prologue didn't cause the aliasing that they do in GT5, it doesn't matter that GT5 is using a more technically complicated way of drawing them, they look worse. Same for the shadows.

I do not agree. The smoke effects are stunning and better than every Need For Speed-style. Very realistic colored and with a realistic calculation and appearance. So far I´ve never seen any better before.

In movement, you do not see any pixelation or whatever. Just in photo-mode, but maybe it is patchable. Same goes for dust and dirt effects when beside the track.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Opinions over if the aesthetic compromises are acceptable given the machines limitations and the games technical achievements aside as obviously the two camps are never going to agree. The fact is that on the right section of track, with the right cars, and a willingness to overlook the lego shadows the game looks awesome. Driving on the Nurburgring is epic, it's visually convincing and you can tell they've been clever with their resources for drawing the track. Driving round the Eigernordwand with it's scenic view and 3D animated spectators shows that with a bit of resource juggling the game can deliver a generational leap over the PS2 games.

But when you catch a glimpse of the shortfalls of the game, arguing that it's because of the PS3 doesn't hold mustard, it's because they didn't go for the most visually appealing method they went brute force or just didn't bother. The smoke effects on GT:HD and Prologue didn't cause the aliasing that they do in GT5, it doesn't matter that GT5 is using a more technically complicated way of drawing them, they look worse. Same for the shadows. The courses that have ropey visuals, if they managed to get premium courses up to scratch then you have to consider that they just didn't optimise the normal courses.

You have time constraints to consider too. PD's team are overstretched at what they are doing and now they finally built the foundation to work from. Most of the tracks have similar visual make up. The 2D trees is just more effective on some tracks than others, just in the way they look. You have to consider it takes them near 2 years to model some of the tracks. Eiger Nordwand does not represent a generational leap to me, it is similar to the techniques used on the PS2 for Grand Canyon. The Premium cars in the game are however greater than the generational leap.

They did bother and that is what cost them marginally in some visual aspects. They added realistic tyre smoke, skid marks, weather effects, day and night cycles and dynamic shadows to make the game a better sim. They could just as easily remove them features and get back to GT5 Prologue look if you don't want them to push the envelope any further in what the PS3 can do.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

In movement, you do not see any pixelation or whatever. Just in photo-mode, but maybe it is patchable.

That's obviously a very subjective matter because I do.

Ultimately though the issues are there. And the two opposing opinions will never change the others mind as to it being the right choice on PD's part. Personally I think the visual sacrifice to achieve certain things detracts from the experience. The other side happily accept the visual compromise as a necessity to achieve a technical feature.

I played Forza 3 about 6 months back and the guys girlfriend was talking about the graphics and how she didn't believe it was the actual game at first and how much better than GT it was (knowing I was a GT fan). I didn't challenge her because I had prologue and was fully expecting GT5 to blow it away. But now I wouldn't try to showcase GT5 to someone, it's not what I was expecting.

 

[Big Ron]

That's obviously a very subjective matter because I do.

Ultimately though the issues are there. And the two opposing opinions will never change the others mind as to it being the right choice on PD's part. Personally I think the visual sacrifice to achieve certain things detracts from the experience. The other side happily accept the visual compromise as a necessity to achieve a technical feature.

I played Forza 3 about 6 months back and the guys girlfriend was talking about the graphics and how she didn't believe it was the actual game at first and how much better than GT it was (knowing I was a GT fan). I didn't challenge her because I had prologue and was fully expecting GT5 to blow it away. But now I wouldn't try to showcase GT5 to someone, it's not what I was expecting.

Yesterday I watch a comparison between Forza and GT at Laguna Seca at insidesimracing.com

While the track details at Forza3 beat GT5 easily, GT5 has the better overall look, better car movement and mor natural look.

Forza 3 looked a bit like miniature cars are running through a diecast landscape.

Of course, GT5 has not a very sharpe and clean visual appearance. But if you know the technics behind, you can accept it easily.

 

[BigYoSpeck]

Yesterday I watch a comparison between Forza and GT at Laguna Seca at insidesimracing.com

While the track details at Forza3 beat GT5 easily, GT5 has the better overall look, better car movement and mor natural look.

Forza 3 looked a bit like miniature cars are running through a diecast landscape.

Of course, GT5 has not a very sharpe and clean visual appearance. But if you know the technics behind, you can accept it easily.

I can agree on that. The effective look of GT is more an approximation of reality that Forza which just looks like slick computer graphics. And I prefer The visuals of GT, but I preferred Prologues on the whole and to your average joe watching none carefully selected footage side by side,they are going to pull GT apart for it's shortfalls.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

That's obviously a very subjective matter because I do.

Ultimately though the issues are there. And the two opposing opinions will never change the others mind as to it being the right choice on PD's part. Personally I think the visual sacrifice to achieve certain things detracts from the experience. The other side happily accept the visual compromise as a necessity to achieve a technical feature.

I played Forza 3 about 6 months back and the guys girlfriend was talking about the graphics and how she didn't believe it was the actual game at first and how much better than GT it was (knowing I was a GT fan). I didn't challenge her because I had prologue and was fully expecting GT5 to blow it away. But now I wouldn't try to showcase GT5 to someone, it's not what I was expecting.

Don't want this to turn to a Forza 3 vs GT5 debate, but seriously the way cars look and track looks, you can easily tell it is a game due to lighting and the colours used. However in some moments in GT5, you might think it actually looks like reality. Never once got that feeling with Forza 3. If you want to showcase GT5, then take it to a night track like Clubman Stage Route 5 driving something like the Mclaren MP4-12C in cockpit view. That should give a wow moment .

Yesterday I watch a comparison between Forza and GT at Laguna Seca at insidesimracing.com

While the track details at Forza3 beat GT5 easily, GT5 has the better overall look, better car movement and mor natural look.

Forza 3 looked a bit like miniature cars are running through a diecast landscape.

Of course, GT5 has not a very sharpe and clean visual appearance. But if you know the technics behind, you can accept it easily.

Looking at Laguna Seca on GT5, it looked a bit off at first but after looking at real life videos, it looks a lot closer to real life than Forza 3. Did you see the Nurburgring GP comparison, there was a huge difference between the two. It makes you understand why quite a few of us call the game cartoony looking.

 

[MidianGTX]

PD are one of the few developers on the PS3 to push the PS3 past its limits of what many thought achievable.

At least that's what they say. I think Guerrilla and Naughty Dog (hell, even Media Molecule) have done far more impressive stuff with the PS3. Their games actually stand above others for technicality, GT5 kinda nestles among the crowd, riding on it's name, fueled by the fans who refuse to admit it could be better.

It's good, but it's only "more or less what we expected" kinda good. What it really should be is "Wow. I have never seen anything like this in my life" good.

Let's not forget we've actually had words directly from Kaz along the lines of "it's possible, but it would be very difficult". Um, yeah? Do it then! If it's possible but difficult then that's exactly what they should be aiming for, not avoiding.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

At least that's what they say. I think Guerrilla and Naughty Dog (hell, even Media Molecule) have done far more impressive stuff with the PS3. Their games actually stand above others for technicality, GT5 kinda nestles among the crowd, riding on it's name, fueled by the fans who refuse to admit it could be better.

It's good, but it's only "more or less what we expected" kinda good. What it really should be is "Wow. I have never seen anything like this in my life" good.

Let's not forget we've actually had words directly from Kaz along the lines of "it's possible, but it would be very difficult". Um, yeah? Do it then! If it's possible but difficult then that's exactly what they should be aiming for, not avoiding.

The game developers you mention are running at a lower frame rate. They are still quite impressive for the frame rate but they are not pushing the PS3 as hard as GT5 I believe. Scientific test would be to measure power consumption of top games of PS3 and average the wattage during gameplay.

I think Uncharted 3 will be on similar levels to GT5 in terms of pushing the console to the limit and beyond what was first thought as possible.

Ain't them words he used for gear ratios? They had a lot of work to do to get GT5 to the level it is. New physics, graphics and game engine since GT4. They are trying to do everything close to right as possible first time. The core parts are being placed at the moment and the next-generation consoles will prove all the haters wrong at what PD can achieve on an equal footing on visuals.

 

[chromatic9]

Secondly 1280x1080 isn't a massive difference over 720p at 1280x720, it's just 360 extra lines.

It's quite a leap actually.

1280x720 = 921600 pixels
1280x1080 = 1382400 pixels

460800 more and half of what 1280x720 is.

I do see the difference on my 1920x1080 monitor compared to 720p games but most environments don't look good. PD used quincunx AA which makes it look more blurry than GT5P and goes against using 1280x1080 in the first place. Also tracks like Trial mountain, Monaco aren't redone. I hope apricot hill, midfield raceway etc get redone properly for GT6. What few tracks GT5 has it's surprising how they couldn't even redo Trial mountain. Seems as though a lot has been dropped for GT6 or PD are just very slow. I do see new techniques in about 15% of GT5 which suggests PD will improve. No point giving it all to us in GT5 as they wouldn't be able to sell GT6. If most of the added tracks in GT6 look like trial mountain/monaco then Sony really need to take a look at PD.

 

[chromatic9]

Dupe post for some reason?