GT5 shots zoomed in

[mani_23]

Your avatar is Hilarious

What do you call it? I need a bigger/higher res version so i can use it as a wallpaper

Everytime i see it i just smile

Hmm...

..Nice name...

[Are you persian?]

 

[okami11408]

XJ13 on motor trend classic magazine compare to GT5.

 

[Reims_]

They got the welding on the spoilder, also the engraving of the manufacturer is there too

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa223/Holt2007/gordonwelds.jpg[/im--g][/QUOTE]

It's strange how the spoiler gets so much detail but the the fuel filler seems a little .... under detailed.


And once again that Jag has blown my mind.

 

[Smoke&Slide]

Now all the XJ13 driver needs, is appropriate 60's clobber on & is sorted.

 

[digitalwolf]

maybe the poly counts on these cars are higher than i thought...

i also noticed GT5 does try to use fake Fresnel effects like car paint usually has. they kinda simulate the effect from a distance from side views but other view the effect is lost...

You know i can't put my finger on it but something is bugging me about the reflections. i thought it was fresnel effects but it seems like thats covered pretty accurately...

GT5 at top view :/

something is still odd to me tho...
-------------
btw people, i stopped using photobucket years ago when an acquaintance put my site on his to give me more views thus resulting in a full bandwidth usage in about a day. thus screwing the extra possible views and exposure.

i now use image kind(oops error tiny pic) which has unlimited bandwidth and no problems...a site like this photobucket can not handle...

http://www.tinypic.com

 

[XEPEGTP]

Now all the XJ13 driver needs, is appropriate 60's clobber on & is sorted.

Vintage cars in GT4 had the leather-helmeted-big-goggled-scarved-60's driver! So we can Hope!

BUT DAMN the pic ont he left looks EXACTLY like the PHoto Travel model! the In Game's engine is far less detailed.

 

[Simon Tibbett]

XJ13 on motor trend classic magazine compare to GT5.

Now that is stunning.

 

[Apok]

I had to look twice to determine which one is from GT5. Really good.

 

[Owen.C93]

And the GT5 shot is not even at full modelling. The engine gets much more detailed in proper photomode.

 

[XEPEGTP]

Compare it to the Photo Travel image:

Linkage

 

[Goshin2568]

Prologue uses identical car models to the finished game, therefore the images are, essentially, also Gran Turismo 5 screenshots.

Gran Turismo 5's car models are no more detailed than that whatsoever.

Wait. I know this is a few days old but WHAT???
Ok ya. GT5's are exactly the same.... except for the fact that they have 2.5x
more polygons?

 

[Kryz11]

GT5 prologue and GT5 full game have same car modeling (Premium) but it depends on what kind of car. That Jaguar has a lot of polygons just on the motor while BMW only has the outside and interior to worry about, no complex motor modeling.

 

[marchi]

People talk about aging technology, but there is yet to be a system that runs as fast as the Cell engine. Even the black edition of the I7 still cannot match the amount of power the the SPU's on the PS3 can output. The replacement for Road runner is apparently double the size because they've reverted back to standard PC Hardware.

For what this game is outputting, you would need to spend a good couple of grand on a PC. Says alot really.

 

[Kryz11]

But still PS3 should have better video card and RAM, it would be a super computer.

 

[okami11408]

Let's talk about the interior.

I think PD should improve some interior details, especially gauges texture resolution.

 

[Griffith500]

People talk about aging technology, but there is yet to be a system that runs as fast as the Cell engine. Even the black edition of the I7 still cannot match the amount of power the the SPU's on the PS3 can output. The replacement for Road runner is apparently double the size because they've reverted back to standard PC Hardware.

For what this game is outputting, you would need to spend a good couple of grand on a PC. Says alot really.

Excluding monitor and audio hardware (since you don't get these with a PS3 either) my current computer, a mid-range "enthusiast class" (custom) build using a Q6600 and HD4870 cost around £700 two years ago. It destroys my PS3 on Folding at Home (most of that is the GPU, of course, but the SPEs are "cheating" anyway ). Games look better on it, and run better, too - it's also far more versatile. You really oughtn't be comparing these two disparate paradigms of computing!

Not to mention, an up-to-date version of the build, costing the same, would be even better...


The "Cells" in IBM's Roadrunner are not comparable with the ones in the PS3, they have a higher throughput and use a different instruction set.


And don't hold your breath for any increases in texture resolution / quality, unless you're going to magically find some extra RAM and / or disk-to-RAM bandwidth, or PD sacrifice quality in other areas (which is already evident).

 

[trk29]

Let's talk about the interior.

I think PD should improve some interior details, especially gauges texture resolution.

Yes I do hate when I can't see the dials because of the light. Like that Corvette in the city course a while ago where you couldn't see any part of the dash except for a glimmer of dials and the ignition switch.

 

[freshseth83]

Excluding monitor and audio hardware (since you don't get these with a PS3 either) my current computer, a mid-range "enthusiast class" (custom) build using a Q6600 and HD4870 cost around £700 two years ago. It destroys my PS3 on Folding at Home (most of that is the GPU, of course, but the SPEs are "cheating" anyway ). Games look better on it, and run better, too - it's also far more versatile. You really oughtn't be comparing these two disparate paradigms of computing!

Not to mention, an up-to-date version of the build, costing the same, would be even better...


The "Cells" in IBM's Roadrunner are not comparable with the ones in the PS3, they have a higher throughput and use a different instruction set.


And don't hold your breath for any increases in texture resolution / quality, unless you're going to magically find some extra RAM and / or disk-to-RAM bandwidth, or PD sacrifice quality in other areas (which is already evident).

No game I've seen looks better than GT5 in motion. The track, the speed, the cars, look real life. For a console that costs 300bucks, it's much better than what you make it out to be. There's tech in the PS3 that games have still yet to take advantage of. Weve seen only a scratch of the surface of that potential with games like God of War 3. GT5 will be a visual force to be reckoned with on any console or computer

 

[danielwhite74]

And the GT5 shot is not even at full modelling. The engine gets much more detailed in proper photomode.

It's already been established that the drop in quality between the two shots is down to overly aggressive level of detail settings. The setting (track or Photo Mode location) is completely unrelated.

 

[sems4arsenal]

XJ13 on motor trend classic magazine compare to GT5.

I bet anyone who hasn't seen GT5 before would think both are real life.Hell even GT5 looks better

 

[the Interceptor]

It's already been established that the drop in quality between the two shots is down to overly aggressive level of detail settings. The setting (track or Photo Mode location) is completely unrelated.

No, it is not established! It is certainly a possibility, but it could just as well be an actual difference between the ingame and the photomode model. Please stop saying it is a fact when you don't know.

The reason I am insisting on this is that once the game is out and all details will be revealed, people will remember such things and will likely blame PD for lying about certain things when they actually never said anything about this matter. And because PD will be blamed for enough things already, there is no need to spread "facts" which are just assumptions.

 

[Griffith500]

No game I've seen looks better than GT5 in motion. The track, the speed, the cars, look real life. For a console that costs 300bucks, it's much better than what you make it out to be. There's tech in the PS3 that games have still yet to take advantage of. Weve seen only a scratch of the surface of that potential with games like God of War 3. GT5 will be a visual force to be reckoned with on any console or computer

No, the PS3 is being fully utilised in current games. All that will come now is further polish and optimisation.

PD have an incredible ability to draw your attention away from areas with lower detail (indeed, your eye is immediately drawn to areas of high detail / interest anyway, unless the low-fi areas look "uncanny".)
The photo-mode shots, for instance, are lacking a great deal of detail in the environments, but this doesn't matter so much, because the focus is on the cars (as it always has been in GT games, even since the first iteration, the environments have "suffered" for the benefit of the cars). Then, of course, there's far more to it than just the visual aspect.

I'm not taking anything away from PD, or the (~ £300) PS3, but it's not the all-conquering beast you make it out to be

 

[Owen.C93]

It's already been established that the drop in quality between the two shots is down to overly aggressive level of detail settings. The setting (track or Photo Mode location) is completely unrelated.

What? I've seen no evidence of a level of detail setting, while the car in motion on a track has less 3D modelling of the engine.

So I assume that Photo travel has more detail compared to a replay mode shot.(Which would make perfect sense)

 

[danielwhite74]

What? I've seen no evidence of a level of detail setting, while the car in motion on a track has less 3D modelling of the engine.

So I assume that Photo travel has more detail compared to a replay mode shot.(Which would make perfect sense)

Level of detail engines work by decreasing the detail of objects progressively, as their distance from the camera's viewpoint increases. In the Photo Travel shot, the engine bay fills almost the entire screen, whereas in the Photo Mode shot the distance is much greater, therefore the game's level of detail engine would decrease the detail of the object which is further from the camera.

 

[Owen.C93]

Level of detail engines work by decreasing the detail of objects progressively, as their distance from the camera's viewpoint increases. In the Photo Travel shot, the engine bay fills almost the entire screen, whereas in the Photo Mode shot the distance is much greater, therefore the game's level of detail engine would decrease the detail of the object which is further from the camera.

Very small difference in distance. Have you seen anything else to back that up?

 

[danielwhite74]

Very small difference in distance. Have you seen anything else to back that up?

Level of detail engines aren't flawless. Not to mention the fact that cars will also be drivable on Photo Travel locations.

 

[Owen.C93]

Level of detail engines aren't flawless. Not to mention the fact that cars will also be drivable on Photo Travel locations.

We'll just have to wait and see then.

In any case your theory certainly wasn't "established".

 

[Dravonic]

Level of detail engines work by decreasing the detail of objects progressively, as their distance from the camera's viewpoint increases. In the Photo Travel shot, the engine bay fills almost the entire screen, whereas in the Photo Mode shot the distance is much greater, therefore the game's level of detail engine would decrease the detail of the object which is further from the camera.

LOD makes sense in real-time where you need to render 60 frames in a second. So why would they use a lower detail model in photomode, where you can get away with taking about 5 seconds to render a single frame? For all I know, they could easily switch to the highest LOD when taking photomode pictures.

So why don't they? I think they actually do, but probably due to lack of memory the model you see there is actually the highest LOD they can use while racing. The full LOD model can only be used in photomode locations, since these locations are specially crafted with this in mind. Exactly the same thing that happened in GT4.

It's still too soon to tell if that's really what's going on, but it certainly makes sense.

 

[danielwhite74]

Exactly the same thing that happened in GT4.

The only difference whatsoever between Photo Travel and gameplay in GT4 were the three-dimensional rims. The car models and level of detail settings were identical.

So why don't they?

Because they don't want to release bullshots, perhaps? 💡

 

[Dravonic]

The only difference whatsoever between Photo Travel and gameplay in GT4 were the three-dimensional rims. The car models and level of detail settings were identical.

Uh... no. It did depend on the car, but photomode models normally had significantly more geometry.

Because they don't want to release bullshots, perhaps? 💡

Then any photomode shot is a bullshot.

You can't have it both ways. Either screenshots must be real-time captures and anything else is a bullshot, or you can release "best case scenario" screenshots and still consider them valid screenshots.