Gran Turismo 7: Latest news and discussion thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter sems4arsenal
  • 50,895 comments
  • 7,885,044 views
I can understand why some people don’t like it, but personally, I think it’s an amazing graphics technology.

 

Attachments

  • vlcsnap-2026-09-12-10h35m10s460.webp
    vlcsnap-2026-09-12-10h35m10s460.webp
    46.9 KB · Views: 2
  • vlcsnap-2026-09-12-10h35m48s237.webp
    vlcsnap-2026-09-12-10h35m48s237.webp
    115.8 KB · Views: 1
  • vlcsnap-2026-09-12-10h36m15s607.webp
    vlcsnap-2026-09-12-10h36m15s607.webp
    121.5 KB · Views: 2
  • vlcsnap-2026-09-12-10h36m36s572.webp
    vlcsnap-2026-09-12-10h36m36s572.webp
    175.2 KB · Views: 1
DLSS 5 looks terrible. In the GT7 example posted earlier, it made the entire track look wet just to give you even more fake reflections and lighting effects. I don't think Kaz and team have their heads so far up their own asses that they can't see how much worse every game looks with DLSS 5 on it. Not that we need to worry, as long as AMD isn't racing to provide their own "GTA 5 realism mod" YouTube thumbnail filter.

DLSS 5 is an insult to art itself, as with everything else Nvidia gets up to these days.
 
AutumnalGlow
DLSS 5 looks terrible. In the GT7 example posted earlier, it made the entire track look wet just to give you even more fake reflections and lighting effects. I don't think Kaz and team have their heads so far up their own asses that they can't see how much worse every game looks with DLSS 5 on it. Not that we need to worry, as long as AMD isn't racing to provide their own "GTA 5 realism mod" YouTube thumbnail filter.

DLSS 5 is an insult to art itself, as with everything else Nvidia gets up to these days.
Click to expand...
DLSS 5 suites other games that already are worse off graphics-wise, but it would ruin Gran Turismo IMO
 
Last edited:
honestly Gran Turismo doesnt really need it but with AMD's neural rendering that can be even better
 
Last edited:
It does not worth f’ ing the planet even more for a garbage gamey wet look and réflexions that should not be there. (That Yas Marina is really terrible)

But that’s just an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Kedmasterz
It does not worth f’ ing the planet even more for a garbage gamey wet look and réflexions that should not be there. (That Yas Marina is really terrible)

But that’s just an opinion.
Click to expand...
People have always liked "OMG shiny" things, realistic or not. One of the reasons why GT3 is so fondly remembered is that it's an oversaturated overcontrasted mess while GT4 looks far more like the world actually does and is considered drab.
 
Last edited:
The thing that bothers me about DLSS 5 is that people are treating it like some fundamental evolution of game rendering, when conceptually it looks much closer to an AI visual filter.

Think about TikTok or Snapchat filters: the system receives an already rendered image, recognizes what it is looking at - face, skin, hair, eyes, etc. - and then uses an AI model to generate or modify pixels based on that understanding.

DLSS 5 is obviously much more sophisticated, because it also has access to things like motion vectors and other information from the game engine. But the basic philosophy is similar: the engine still does the actual rendering, and the neural network comes afterward to reinterpret and synthesize the visual result.

And that’s the fundamental limitation for me.

It doesn’t really operate at the engine level. It doesn’t make the underlying game simulation, materials, geometry or lighting physically behave differently. The engine has already made those decisions and produced the scene. DLSS 5 then looks at that information and generates a new visual representation of it.

So rather than:

Engine → physically correct image

it’s more like:

Engine → rendered image/data → AI interpretation → modified/generated pixels

That’s incredibly impressive technology, but it’s also fundamentally an AI layer over the renderer, rather than a replacement for the renderer itself.

And that’s why I think the comparisons to actual advances in rendering technology are a bit misleading. We’re essentially teaching an AI what a game should look like and letting it fill in the gaps.

That’s closer in principle to an extremely advanced Snapchat filter than to fundamentally changing how the game engine renders the world.

The results may look amazing. I’m not arguing that. I’m questioning what kind of technological advancement it actually represents.

And also: I hate AI. I hate the people behind it, I hate the people that it’s going to make rich, I hate what it’s gonna do to humanity and society. On every imaginable level - I HATE AI. More precisely: Genreative AI.

Fun fact: I used AI to translate my post 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Well, I’m going to repeat for the umpteenth time what’s already been said, but in a bit more detail:


It’s experimental and limited.
It was originally released only in NBA 2K27 (for now).


It’s an early version, initially designed for a game where the realism of the materials, skin, and lighting really makes a difference (a sport game with scanned human model).



That said, i understand that it’s controversial (for good reasons): performance costs, questions about long-term artistic control etc.



But reducing it to an “extremely advanced Snapchat filter” completely underestimates this technology.

A Snapchat filter simply looks at a 2D photo and applies an effect to it.

DLSS 5 takes the render from the game engine plus motion data, and adds realistic lighting and material effects in a controlled manner while strictly adhering to the geometry and artistic intent of NBA 2K. It’s a smart step in the rendering pipeline, not just a cosmetic filter.


Modders have extracted the DLSS 5 DLL (which was present in the NBA 2K27 files) and injected it into other games to test neural rendering outside of the official implementation.

This is purely experimental and not officially supported.
And I think it’s a shame to see you all reacting as if this were a catastrophe and as if it were going to kill video games.


I’d like to remind you that DLSS is not MANDATORY in video games that use it—at least on PC, since we have a choice.

Thanks DeepL for the translation.
 
Last edited:
Alfa Romeo GT
And I think it’s a shame to see you all reacting as if this were a catastrophe and as if it were going to kill video games.
Click to expand...
Alfa Romeo GT
DLSS 5 takes the render from the game engine plus motion data, and adds realistic lighting and material effects in a controlled manner while strictly adhering to the geometry and artistic intent of NBA 2K. It’s a smart step in the rendering pipeline, not just a cosmetic filter.
Click to expand...
How is this not killing the artistic integrity of video games?

It effectively says "Nvidia says lighting and materials should be like this, so that's how everything's going to be". Why would anyone want to be in a creative, artistic role in making a video game if any decisions they make are just going to be ignored in favour of how DLSS 5 wants it to look? There isn't a "correct" way of doing lighting or of doing materials, even games going for photorealistic looks can approach these in very different ways.

I'm not going to say someone is wrong for thinking that Yas Marina screenshot looks good - I don't, I think it makes it look wet, but others can have their own opinions. But the problem is that everything will converge on that one look, nothing will have any unique creativity to it, because DLSS 5 has been trained to go for specific outputs that it will move everything towards.
 
Nakano219
How is this not killing the artistic integrity of video games?

It effectively says "Nvidia says lighting and materials should be like this, so that's how everything's going to be". Why would anyone want to be in a creative, artistic role in making a video game if any decisions they make are just going to be ignored in favour of how DLSS 5 wants it to look? There isn't a "correct" way of doing lighting or of doing materials, even games going for photorealistic looks can approach these in very different ways.

I'm not going to say someone is wrong for thinking that Yas Marina screenshot looks good - I don't, I think it makes it look wet, but others can have their own opinions. But the problem is that everything will converge on that one look, nothing will have any unique creativity to it, because DLSS 5 has been trained to go for specific outputs that it will move everything towards.
Click to expand...

DLSS 5 does not replace the studio’s creative decisions.
It builds on the rendering that artists have already done (geometry, textures, basic lighting). It was on NBA 2k and it looks amazing.


And that’s precisely why, ever since the leaks—and thus ever since the general public has been using it—sometimes it looks good (Assetto Corsa),and sometimes it’s an absolute disaster.

It’s possible to tweak all the settings, but players don’t have the expertise to do so.


And yes there’s a risk of homogenization, especially if many games use it the same way without adjusting the settings.
But this isn’t automatic: a studio can choose to use it very sparingly, only on certain materials, or not at all.

And once again, this isn't mandatory; you can disable DLSS, particularly in Resident Evil 9, which is kind of strange.

In conclusion, I think this off-topic discussion is going to blow up in our faces. (i hope not)
 
Last edited:
GlamFM
No way. With the way hardware prices are developing (thanks to drumroll AI)
The PS6 will take forever to get to an install base big enough to justify exclusives.
Click to expand...
That's the problem the traditional console model is facing.

To make back development costs on new AAA games, they have to be backwards compatible with the previous Gen to hit targets, as the cost of new consoles is so high nowadays the install base isn't big enough.

On the other hand, without exclusives, there is little reason to upgrade to new hardware over simply playing the games on what you already have.

SONY is clearly banking on GTA 6 to move units, but that will be a once in a lifetime event rather than something that can be sustained and repeated.



My perspective: future consoles will have to focus on convenience over raw horsepower (see steam deck and co.) Instead of chasing increasingly costly fidelity for diminishing returns, focusing on portability and the ability to play your library from anywhere at any time would give a tangible reason to invest in new hardware that some slightly shinier graphics would not.

But hey, I'm not a business expert, so maybe I'm just talking out my ass..
 
TPGRacing75
That's the problem the traditional console model is facing.

To make back development costs on new AAA games, they have to be backwards compatible with the previous Gen to hit targets, as the cost of new consoles is so high nowadays the install base isn't big enough.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and that makes Sony's and Microsoft's decision to go back to console exclusives - and in Sony's case even ditching PC - even more baffling.

It's all gonna crash and burn I fear.
 
GlamFM
Yeah, and that makes Sony's and Microsoft's decision to go back to console exclusives - and in Sony's case even ditching PC - even more baffling.

It's all gonna crash and burn I fear.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the crashing and burning is already happening. However on the optimistic side, sometimes you need to burn away the old growth so that plants can sprout anew.
 
TPGRacing75
Yeah, the crashing and burning is already happening. However on the optimistic side, sometimes you need to burn away the old growth so that plants can sprout anew.
Click to expand...
Yeah, gaming isn't going anywhere. It's definitely going to exist forever. What I think will change is who makes the games and who they're being made for.

North America is becoming an incredibly expensive place to develop games, and we're already seeing the industry shift. More and more development is moving to places like Korea and China, and I don't see that trend slowing down anytime soon.

The big question for me isn't whether games will continue to be made. It's whether we'll remain the primary target audience. If a growing share of the industry's output comes from Asia, especially China, there may come a point where the market starts catering more to Chinese players than Western ones.

Maybe the industry stays global and nothing fundamentally changes. But I do wonder if, ten or twenty years from now, we'll look back and realize that the center of gravity in gaming quietly moved east while we were watching studio closures in the West.

GranTurismo will be around FOREVER though.

Anyway. We're way off topic now. I'll leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
I still wonder what made PD go cross gen for GT7, especially since it was made for PS5 initially
 
VlackSiper12
I still wonder what made PD go cross gen for GT7, especially since it was made for PS5 initially
Click to expand...
SIE panicked at the chip shortage* (which also led to a console shortage, which led to price gouging) and I suppose figured that trying to get the game onto 100m PS4s rather than only a projected 10m PS5s (actually only 8m by the time GT7 launched) would help sales.

Caused by COVID, a super typhoon, and manufacturers selling to the more profitable mobile phone market and then the more profitable car market (which required more chips for ADAS) and then the more profitable PC market (mainly for crypto mining), with consoles a distant fourth.
 
Famine
SIE panicked at the chip shortage* (which also led to a console shortage, which led to price gouging) and I suppose figured that trying to get the game onto 100m PS4s rather than only a projected 10m PS5s (actually only 8m by the time GT7 launched) would help sales.

Caused by COVID, a super typhoon, and manufacturers selling to the more profitable mobile phone market and then the more profitable car market (which required more chips for ADAS) and then the more profitable PC market (mainly for crypto mining), with consoles a distant fourth.
Click to expand...
Ok that makes sense onto why GT7 was cross gen
 
On the topic of DLSS5 in ANY GT game (let alone the idea of it in GT7 or GT8), I feel confident in saying that PD themselves will never go down that road. They're far too proud of their own work (As they should be) to just sell out to this. There has always been this artistry to GT that feels like even in other genres, its starting to be less and less so the fact that they are still around begs the question: Why should they?

As far as GT7 related discussion: Anyone else notice a pattern with the Stealth cars from the GT World Series?

1789233803379.webp

1789233817211.webp


Abit early but you gotta admit: This and the fact that the 30th Anniversary is coming up, seems very convenient.
 
Back