GT5 Rear View Mirror

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cobra_NZ
  • 46 comments
  • 5,376 views

Cobra_NZ

(Banned)
Messages
299
I've watched the Nurburgring videos recently and I don't like how much detail loss occurs. From PD and KY, I would expect them, if they're going to do it, to do it right. Still, I've watched the videos a few times and the visuals in the rear view are worst than GT1.:( One way around it would be to turn it off in the options, I suppose but still, GT5 has been in development for so long that one tends to expect better than this.

I mean GTForever is one of the longest driving games in development and while, like many of us, I wait with anticipation, I'm concerned. Driving games on the PS1, like TOCA, had reverse lights, full damage, skidmarks, intelligent AI and more, one can't help but starting to doubt GT's calibre.
 
Last edited:
You know I was about to go on to explain to you how the rear view is always rather lower detail to save on processing power for what is not normally a highly viewed area, but watching that latest Nurb video it did strike me as awfully low quality...

A glaring example was the rumble strips on curves... front view has them smooth and curved, rear view breaks them in to straight pieces and tacks them end to end very much reminding me of Mario Kart on the SNES....

Seems also road side signs dissapear entirely...

That is rather startling...
 
I think that too much details in the rear mirror will be too much for the "driver's eye".
What I mean is that the point of that mirror is the driver to look back and know what's happening in a friction of a second. Basically, the driver wants to know how many cars behind, their location (left/right side) and distance.
I think that too much details might cause this "task" to take longer and might hurt the driver from keep driving in the same pace.
 
I think that too much details in the rear mirror will be too much for the "driver's eye".
What I mean is that the point of that mirror is the driver to look back and know what's happening in a friction of a second. Basically, the driver wants to know how many cars behind, their location (left/right side) and distance.
I think that too much details might cause this "task" to take longer and might hurt the driver from keep driving in the same pace.

I couldn't disagree more :p I want my mirror to display what is behind me, whether that be other cars, trees, track, my skid marks and smoke from doing a bad burnout off the startline, signs, etc etc. That's the realistic thing to do and aids immersion (opposed to having a mirror made up of a few poorly lit and ugly blocky textures that look vaguely like a car).

Of course the penalty is game performance, so some compromise has to be met.
 
I think that too much details in the rear mirror will be too much for the "driver's eye".
What I mean is that the point of that mirror is the driver to look back and know what's happening in a friction of a second. Basically, the driver wants to know how many cars behind, their location (left/right side) and distance.
I think that too much details might cause this "task" to take longer and might hurt the driver from keep driving in the same pace.

I couldn't agree more.

There isn't really a need to display everything behind me if I'm looking forwards. All you need is the basics: Cars and their relative position, visual screening effects such as smoke/diesel fumes (Yes, yes I know) and hazards/details that could come into effect next lap (such as barriers that have been moved) Not much else
 
I trust PD to get the balance right, so they are allocating and using the ps3 resources on the right things. After all, the ps3 maybe powerful, but it is limited by memory and processing power.
 
@OP: So, would you be willing to sacrifice, say, 4-6 cars on the grid in order to get more detail in the rearview mirror?

I know I would not.
 
@op: So, would you be willing to sacrifice, say, 4-6 cars on the grid in order to get more detail in the rearview mirror?

I know i would not.

+1
 

+2

Lets be realistic - PD has a poly budget and I'd rather they blew as much as possible on what's in front of me. Skimping on mirror fidelity is forgivable as far as I'm concerned.
 
Funny....
I couldn't disagree more :p I want my mirror to display what is behind me, whether that be other cars, trees, track, my skid marks and smoke from doing a bad burnout off the startline, signs, etc etc. That's the realistic thing to do and aids immersion (opposed to having a mirror made up of a few poorly lit and ugly blocky textures that look vaguely like a car).

Of course the penalty is game performance, so some compromise has to be met.

I couldn't agree more.

There isn't really a need to display everything behind me if I'm looking forwards. All you need is the basics: Cars and their relative position, visual screening effects such as smoke/diesel fumes (Yes, yes I know) and hazards/details that could come into effect next lap (such as barriers that have been moved) Not much else

It is just amazing how people think so much different even they have the same target which is to have & play the best game/racing available (...on PS3)
 
@snowgt

Of course I would sacrifice 1 car from the grid for a full detailed rear view mirror. I would sacrifice 2 cars for skidmarks and reverse lights. That is perfection, what it is to be good or not at all. Isn't this the perfection KY would have us believe he is looking to create in GTForever? Less is more, quality is more important than quantity when one is striving for perfection. That's the perfection as defined by the whole world.

So yes, this is why I'm concerned. I would not be concerned so much if the game had been in development for 2 years only and had to face tight deadlines. In such cases corners are cut and things can sometimes look half-finished. Forza Motorsport 3 is a good example. But with GTForever I expect more, after all we're talking about more that 6 years in development. Not to mention we don't even know when it will be released.
 
Personally I'd rather have more cars on the grid if that's the choice I was making. I feel I'm more likely to benefit, gameplay wise than if I had an awesome mirror view. Not saying you're wrong, just that we have different ideas about priority.
 
I trust PD to get the balance right, so they are allocating and using the ps3 resources on the right things. After all, the ps3 maybe powerful, but it is limited by memory and processing power.

I dont :p I dont simply because so many games get it wrong. GTR has horrible mirrors.

@OP: So, would you be willing to sacrifice, say, 4-6 cars on the grid in order to get more detail in the rearview mirror?

I know I would not.

I highly doubt that a high quality mirror would cost 4-6 cars. Maybe 1 car, or half a car, or a couple of trees :p
 
when you are in a real race, trust me you would not regonize any details, so for me the details are enough for me
 
when you are in a real race, trust me you would not regonize any details, so for me the details are enough for me

I notice in every other game I play, so I'm pretty sure I'll notice in GT5 as well ;)
 
Has anyone noticed if there's difference in quality between cockpit-view mirror and bumper-cam mirror. Logic suggests the possibility that, because of all the spare polys from the dashboard and hand models bumper cam view might potentially have a slightly better resolution in the mirror. If this is the case then it suits me - I always play in bumper cam :p
 
@snowgt

Of course I would sacrifice 1 car from the grid for a full detailed rear view mirror. I would sacrifice 2 cars for skidmarks and reverse lights. That is perfection, what it is to be good or not at all. Isn't this the perfection KY would have us believe he is looking to create in GTForever? Less is more, quality is more important than quantity when one is striving for perfection. That's the perfection as defined by the whole world.

So yes, this is why I'm concerned. I would not be concerned so much if the game had been in development for 2 years only and had to face tight deadlines. In such cases corners are cut and things can sometimes look half-finished. Forza Motorsport 3 is a good example. But with GTForever I expect more, after all we're talking about more that 6 years in development. Not to mention we don't even know when it will be released.

I will base on what you've said but I will take it the extreme:
What if PD would make the perfect GT game for you - which will have all you ever wanted & dream in a perfect manner - skidmarks, smoke, sound, rear view, physics, etc. - you name it. But it turns out that because of all this perfection there could be only 1 car on the track - your car alone !!! (i.e. time trial only but with the perfect game....)

Would that be a perfect game for you? I guess not...
You would like to have some AI cars, right?
You would also like to have some online friends driving against each other, right?
What is the minimum cars you would accept as a perfect game? 3, 4, 5 or 6 like previous GT's...

Each company has to make compromises when developing a game (actually this works in real-life as well), and it has to put a red-line of what is the lowest limit. It could be that your lowest
On PS2 it was 6 cars on track
And it looks like currently the lowest limit of PD/KY is 16. So after they have set the minimum requirements they are developing the actual game to be align with that minimum...
 
I don't need any more detail in rear mirror than position of cars behind me sitting on the correct places of the road and very brief surrounding as it now. But in the side mirror, there should be correct perspective and little bit of car side for better orientation.
 
Each company has to make compromises when developing a game

Of course, and to me that compromise shouldn't be drawn at bad quality mirrors, no skid marks and no reverse lights :p But others may disagree.

You could just as equally go the other way and say wouldn't it be awesome if the physics were uber realistic with awesome real time tire physics using the latest and greatest tire models from the latest testing methods, will accurate suspension modelling, chassis flex and yaw inertia, all whilst having the full 55 car grid on Le Mans.

Oh, but by the way the graphics level will be the equivalant of GT3 :p
 
I highly doubt that a high quality mirror would cost 4-6 cars. Maybe 1 car, or half a car, or a couple of trees :p

That's alright. I would sacrifice some trees (or rather tree-detail) for 4 cars more. :sly:
 
Rear view mirrors are low res in real life anyway - except when stationary.

a) IRL they're only used for split second glances - the brain just needs to assimilate the main features

b) IRL vibration from the mountings blurs the view at speed
 
Of course, and to me that compromise shouldn't be drawn at bad quality mirrors, no skid marks and no reverse lights :p But others may disagree.

You could just as equally go the other way and say wouldn't it be awesome if the physics were uber realistic with awesome real time tire physics using the latest and greatest tire models from the latest testing methods, will accurate suspension modelling, chassis flex and yaw inertia, all whilst having the full 55 car grid on Le Mans.

Oh, but by the way the graphics level will be the equivalant of GT3 :p

You know, I'd actually kind of go for that. Seriously packed, full realistic races but the graphics suck a bit.

Shame no one would ever make that game. Graphics are the holy grail of selling a game nowadays. If it don't look pretty, no body ain't gonna touch that varmint.
 
You know, I'd actually kind of go for that. Seriously packed, full realistic races but the graphics suck a bit.

Shame no one would ever make that game. Graphics are the holy grail of selling a game nowadays. If it don't look pretty, no body ain't gonna touch that varmint.
If you want to try this kind of a game (great physics, "bad" graphics) you can grab either GPL (Grand Prix Legeds) or LFS (Live For Speed). Both are PC games, the first (GPL) is pretty old but consider to be the simulator with the greatests physics of all time !!! iRacing physics engine is based on the GPL physics and source code).
Because it has old graphics the PC requires are very low so you don't need to worry if you don't have a modern PC.
 
You do know how vast an improvement the rear view mirrors are over what we saw in Prologue right?

I complained, because they used to look like images created in MS paint. Now they look semi-realistic.

I mean, if you want to see a clearer image of what is behind you, do what you do in real life: Turn your head around and look. :sly:
 
I'm not going to touch on earlier posts going on extemes, it's just childish.

Unless this is Virtual Reality, it's quite difficult to judge the competitor's positions by turning one's head. There is a rear view button, but that is nowhere near as functional as a rear view mirror.

Now honestly, GTPrologue's rear view mirror was even worst, but, GTForever's is still very poor when compared to NFS:SHIFT, FM3, DIRT2 or even GRID...
 
Now honestly, GTPrologue's rear view mirror was even worst, but, GTForever's is still very poor when compared to NFS:SHIFT, FM3, DIRT2 or even GRID...

But the view ahead of you is so much better than all the above. For the rear view to be the same quality... Its just not necessary.
 
Who gives a damn about the rear view mirror detail? Some people doesn't understand that hardware power is limited and developers face compromises. Reading things like "it's been in developement for so long I'd expect better than this..." in the OP just makes my eyes roll... wake up mate, it can be in developement 10 years more and it won't look massively better.
 
Are you reading this PD? This is one more reason why you should delay GT5 even more, because I don't want to press the damn L1 button to see what is happening behind me, I want to look in the rear mirror and see what color the helmet of my opponent is...
[/sarcasm]
 
Sometimes there's 2 mirrors in view.

Additional runs through geometry (particularly with cameras pointing in different directions) can be costly.
 
But the view ahead of you is so much better than all the above. For the rear view to be the same quality... Its just not necessary.

Well from the TT demo I am not so ready to just go with that claim just yet...

Sometimes there's 2 mirrors in view.

Additional runs through geometry (particularly with cameras pointing in different directions) can be costly.

I wouldn't be surprised if all rear view mirrors use the same view and just show you different parts of the FOV.
 
Back