- 858
- United Kingdom
⠀
Last edited:
The original post of this thread was comparing the fancy close up high detailed textures to make the point that GT6 "looks" more realistic than FM5, along with a great number of people cherry picking flaws in FM5's graphics with encouragement. Only now it's become off topic?
Very few people in the entire thread have actually made a direct comparison between the options and features of both photomodes.
I miss an USB transfer option, too. Maybe T10 isn't allowed to do this on 360 and XB1.
In FM5 you are limited to compressed 1080p images. The uncompressed, 4k "big shots" from FM4 are gone :/.
Im not going to argue with you as you only seem interrested in derailing this thread. bye now
I'd say it was probably off topic the very first time SlipZtrEm said it was off topic 250 posts ago. Then when he said so a second time 230 posts ago. Or the third time 10 posts after that. Or, hell, this post from T-12 400 posts ago about the exact thing King1982 decided to do when he posted a ton of pictures without saying anything about them, then abjectly refused to discuss them.The original post of this thread was comparing the fancy close up high detailed textures to make the point that GT6 "looks" more realistic than FM5, along with a great number of people cherry picking flaws in FM5's graphics with encouragement. Only now it's become off topic?
Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing it.Actually, no. The guy who spammed up a page with a several dozen odd pictures of FM5 photomode (of extremely varying quality) with no context or explanation, to the point of deliberately ignoring when someone asks a question about one of them, is the one derailing this thread. Just like it was earlier when bashfulboson was doing the same thing for GT6.
That's before we note the transparent motives for posting.
Along those lines:
I'd say it was probably off topic the very first time SlipZtrEm said it was off topic 250 posts ago. Then when he said so a second time 230 posts ago. Or the third time 10 posts after that. Or, hell, this post from T-12 400 posts ago about the exact thing King1982 decided to do when he posted a ton of pictures without saying anything about them, then abjectly refused to discuss them.
Pick your poison.
Forza 5 has some incredible detail, here's one I took of the Nordschleife and even the paint looks real.
![]()
What's wrong with the lightning? Why still that light grey front grill on xbox one?
Also the headlights and tail lights of some cars need to be changed. They don't look right, not very realistic.
FM cars also received the same standard/premium treatment as GT?
I kept out of this for a while because of arguments before but I'm coming back in with a response after reading some of the points made.
The only way you are going to make a realistic photomode is to create a realistic lighting engine. Forza 5 doesn't have a realistic lighting engine, therefore no matter how much the fanboys defend static lighting it will never look as realistic as Gran Turismo's.
I'm going to give a few examples of how GT looks in it's photomode, in different lighting environments. Things Forza 5 simply cannot do, even with a talented editor. You can compare these to the Forza 5 photos already posted.
All photos are unedited, I rarely edit them because they just look so natural already.
I reiterate my point. It is the realistic lighting engine that creates a realistic photograph. There is no way of avoiding that fact.
![]()
In a "collage" like that, higher resolution photos are not going to give more realism if first the photo cuts does not blend naturally in order to mimic the desired real picture (track). That is another factor of the infamous cartoonish graphics attribued to Forza. If you focus the photo at a close-up texture can looks reallistic (is just a photo of a photo) but if the camera is positioned in a farther view, with other elements on track, the illusion is very different. There are other factors that remove realism like overdoing the details (asphalt cracks, skidmarks, bump mapping) or repeating a texture along a track as a "carpet". Basically Forza lacks in the art department.
I'm just speechless. Sadly in-game IQ is nowhere near, but anyway - FM5 has best tracks quality.
At least it runs at a locked 60 fps..![]()
Does this not look photorealistic too you?
![]()
Honestly, no. The lighting looks too bold, the car looks flat and the textures are weird and tiled as well as the overall colour pallet being too orange. The car is also too sharp. It could do with some anti-aliasing.
Now, you tell me this doesn't look photo-realistic?
![]()
I still find it hilarious that people are defending a Next-Generation game from a game which is on a console with 32x less graphical capabilities and one that is getting on for 10 years old... Forza should be doing better with the equipment they have.
As I said in my original point. Once Forza gets real-time lighting, potentially FM6, then the photomode will look more realistic and potentially as good as GT6's. Still sad that a game that isn't in development yet needs to catch up to one on the PS3...
At least it runs at a locked 60 fps..![]()
Honestly, no. The lighting looks too bold, the car looks flat and the textures are weird and tiled as well as the overall colour pallet being too orange. The car is also too sharp. It could do with some anti-aliasing.
I still find it hilarious that people are defending a Next-Generation game from a game which is on a console with 32x less graphical capabilities and one that is getting on for 10 years old... Forza should be doing better with the equipment they have.
A photomode shot of Forza doesn't even represent what the game looks like in game.
It's not exactly the fact that GT6 is better than FM5 while being on less capable hardware, that's a shallow argument. You're really just saying that GT6 is better because of a couple of images. That Image of FM5 is honestly terrible, as well as that GT6 image. The things going on in FM5 are actually more complex than GT6. Just because it has dynamic lighting doesn't exactly mean anything. Turn 10 could turn around in FM6, hire new artists and people that are much better with shaders and make everything a bit more bland to match the lighting of GT6. There is nothing wrong with FM5s lighting but you decide to write it off because it isn't dynamic which is something that is completely wrong. You can have static lighting and have it be miles better than the lighting that the GT series has.
Sure, that image you uploaded of GT6 is realistic within terms of lighting but there are many things in the image that are holding it back as well as the image in FM5. When it comes to a image being taken in FM5, consider the fact that the image may have been tampered with in it's photo mode.
![]()
Truly, all you're really talking about is the color palette.
![]()
![]()
Much better, yeah? The top one looks sooo much better than the lighting in FM5, which is basically what you're are assuming with the two shots you're comparing.
I have already been warned about my responses to you fanboys so I will keep this simple for you.
Real life is a little dull isn't it?.. It's such a shame Gran Turismo 6 replicates this really well.
Honestly, no. The lighting looks too bold, the car looks flat and the textures are weird and tiled as well as the overall colour pallet being too orange. The car is also too sharp. It could do with some anti-aliasing.
Really? 2D trees?
Meh i've seen better pictures than that. Let PD just focus on important things like getting a locked framerate next time.
Instead of coming to me with some lame joke about FM5, take time to reinforce and clarify your own argument. Games like BF4, COD, movies like, LOTR, Star Wars, even animated movies like Toy Story or 9 have different color palettes because of either they're aiming at a certain audience, or B. Deciding to have it like that to fit a specific story, not because they suck at animation or lighting.
And this is the whole point - to maintain as much realism as possible a game needs to be/look/feel realistic - if you make a racing game look like a film then you've failed to do that.
Forza looks like a movie, GT6 doesn't
So I'm taking away from these two things that GT6 is better than FM5 default because of a better color palette.
This forum confuses me.. Just wow. I don't even think the topics in this thread will be settled. It'll just end up with them being spun around constantly.
That's what a discussion is - differing viewpoints of one topic.
I have been reading the excuse of the color palette to justify the Forza graphics since the first Forza and not, it does not work like that.Turn 10 could turn around in FM6, hire new artists and people that are much better with shaders and make everything a bit more bland to match the lighting of GT6.
Truly, all you're really talking about is the color palette.
I call you out and put a little sense into what you're really talking about which is color palette and you can't exactly process what I'm talking about. Going out and saying that FM5 looks like some sort of fantasy land is absolutely stupid.
If you were to go into the engine of FM5 and adjust the sun, you'll probably see that the sun in the game is just a wire mesh, and the lighting adjusts to wherever it is.
Games like BF4, COD, movies like, LOTR, Star Wars, even animated movies like Toy Story or 9 have different color palettes because of either they're aiming at a certain audience, or B. Deciding to have it like that to fit a specific story, not because they suck at animation or lighting.
This is far better than anything I've ever seen in GT. Not because it's a better photo, but because it's an Audi Wagon with a full livery!!