Need For Speed (2015)

  • Thread starter Ameer67
  • 7,701 comments
  • 566,179 views
Can't see a reason why it wouldn't, or at least a similar model wouldn't be in actual gameplay. They seem to be drawing a decent amount of attention to them.


What exactly are you referring to?


I honestly think it doesn't look like either.
sorry just noticed this. Was talkiing about the photo with the M3 that someone pointed out in this threa, although I don't know why I said trailer.
 
I tend to get confused at first with the R32, as it can be either the Skyline GT-R, or the MK5 VW Golf R32.

While they are literally two different cars with different body types and engines, they do have a similar design of taillights which are two round shapes for each side.

(This confusion is only when I am waiting for videos or photos to load, have a bad connection here, I mean of course it would be a Skyline, the chances of that in the game is much less than a German hot hatch)
 
Also noticed this shot of what is clearly R32 tail lights in the background.
I think they're too large and too close together to be R32 lights. To me, they look like R33s.

DSC00594.jpg
 
I tend to get confused at first with the R32, as it can be either the Skyline GT-R, or the MK5 VW Golf R32.

While they are literally two different cars with different body types and engines, they do have a similar design of taillights which are two round shapes for each side.

(This confusion is only when I am waiting for videos or photos to load, have a bad connection here, I mean of course it would be a Skyline, the chances of that in the game is much less than a German hot hatch)

R32 should always refer to the skyline, the Golf you are taking about is a Mk5, R32 is just the name given to the top spec model. That would be like referring to the R32 GTR as just a "GTR" which is a name given to lots of different cars. R32 is the chassis code and refers to every single model of the 1989-1994 skyline.

As for the tail lights yeah they are kind of similar but not quite the same as the R32 or 180sx lights which look the same when it's dark.

I think they're too large and too close together to be R32 lights. To me, they look like R33s.

DSC00594.jpg

Yeah could be, I would be surprised to see the R33 in the game though.
 
Last edited:
What I was saying is just he's probably just hinting at Honda's presence in general than referring to that particular yellow S2000.

I don't know. That's just the impression I got.

Why would he say that it was yellow? Clearly he's trying to give us a hint :)
 
I'm pretty sure judging from what I have seen and read, this game takes a crapton of resources.



I thought he did mention the Boss?
I did originally
You're right, he didn't use possible, as he seemed more sure then that.
In my second post I did.
But they still got a 1969 Mustang to put in that very trailer which leads me to believe that it is possible it could be put into NFS15
 
There were a few of them who got invited to record gameplay at Gamescom, maybe they have to verify everything with EA before they can post the footage..
Possible, maybe if there is anything EA/Ghost don't want to be seen yet then they may want it edited out.
 
You will get stutters, tearing, and all kinds of things. When something breaks from its natural state, whether it be 30FPS or 60FPS it is noticeable all the same. Being at 45FPS and fluctuating by 5-6 Frames doesn't mean that it'll still look smoother then a game locked at 30fps.

Bumping it up to 45 also is going to be taking more resources that could be used for other useful things. A locked 30 would do fine.

I'm also going to have to call that you cant notice a drop of 12 FPS off of a 60 FPS game. Thats almost a 25% framerate drop, and if you can't see that then I'm not sure how much we should be reading into your comments. It's just sounds like you're over exaggerating.

60 to 48 was probably too much. But my point stands is the 10% drop you see from 30 to 27 is so much huger than 60 to 55 that I have no idea why resources don't go into bumping consoles up to 35 or 40 instead so they have a greater threshold.

I just mean that overall the problem is the drops them selves, if there are no drops, it's so much better, but if there ARE drops, a higher base threshold FPS is better than a lower one because the human eye notices it less.

Sure i notice a 60 to 48 drop but it doesn't become a slideslow like when you get a 30-23 fps drop in some console games. That is night and day dude and can't be argued against, besides overall, my eyes don't see much difference above 75fps I doubt anyone elses could prove otherwise so a 75 to 60 drop is nothing, same that a 60-50 doesn't make me go "omfg wtf, CAKE!" like a 30-24 would.
 
I did originally

In my second post I did.
Because someone corrected you doesn't take away from the fact that was said.

60 to 48 was probably too much. But my point stands is the 10% drop you see from 30 to 27 is so much huger than 60 to 55 that I have no idea why resources don't go into bumping consoles up to 35 or 40 instead so they have a greater threshold.

I just mean that overall the problem is the drops them selves, if there are no drops, it's so much better, but if there ARE drops, a higher base threshold FPS is better than a lower one because the human eye notices it less.

Sure i notice a 60 to 48 drop but it doesn't become a slideslow like when you get a 30-23 fps drop in some console games. That is night and day dude and can't be argued against, besides overall, my eyes don't see much difference above 75fps I doubt anyone elses could prove otherwise so a 75 to 60 drop is nothing, same that a 60-50 doesn't make me go "omfg wtf, CAKE!" like a 30-24 would.
Oh so it was more along the lines of just throwing numbers out there to try to bring light to your point. Got it.

That would all make sense if all that happened with frame drops was that it slowed down very stealthily and without any other problems, but that's not what happens. You get screen tearing, stutters, fluctuations, slow motion and then sped up effects. It's all note able just the same no matter if it's starting from 30 or 60.

A good reason to not jump to 45 is because it's not going to be that great a difference in the first place. Those resources are better used elsewhere. Not only that, but if you jump to 45 and you are having problems at 30, the problems don't stay the same, they'll get significantly worse and the only to fix that would be to again take resources from something else. That all sounds like a pretty horrible trade off. The more you write about this the less and less I believe you.
 
Ok I know this doesn't have anything to do with NFS 2015 but I've been having a problem with the dyno tuning lately on NFS Underground 2 where my new tune setup for my Evo for URL racing won't work. When I test run it, it works, but when I leave Dyno Tuning and go do some URL racing with the Evo, the tune won't save and it just reverts back to the tune I gave to my Evo before the new tune setup I gave it now. Either if Dyno tuning is buggy or if I'm doing something wrong here or if it's a hardware issue *very stupid thought although my PS2 runs NFSU2 a bit slow then usual most likely because of how old my PS2 is* I have no clue on why this is happening. Even if I save my profile, it still won't work. Can someone please help me?
image.jpg
 
Honestly this site is about racing and cars..can we stop with the frame per second and graphics argument honestly this is the reason why some of you don't get the features that you want.because a lot of resources go into making the game pretty therefore we end up getting 90% graphics 10% gameplay.lets talk about features,cars,map,storyline and customization.We already know consoles can barely push 30 frames per second at the moment with all max resources , you guys already know how frostbite runs so open up a need for speed technical/graphics discussion thread and argue all you want there about frame per second and graphics as long as we get a game that represent the series and runs stable that's all that matter i care more about the content then the graphics.right now as it is the game looks very realistic visually and based on the gameplay is running fast capturing the speed and thrills that need for speed is known for.

I'm not starting a console war or PC vs console debate.

in other news, a photo mode just got confirmed on twitter and they will go more in depth soon.
 
Last edited:
Honestly this site is about racing and cars..can we stop with the frame per second and graphics argument honestly this is the reason why some of you don't get the features that you want.because a lot of resources go into making the game pretty therefore we end up getting 90% graphics 10% gameplay.lets talk about features,cars,map,storyline and customization.We already know consoles can barely push 30 frames per second at the moment with all max resources , you guys already know how frostbite runs so open up a need for speed technical/graphics discussion thread and argue all you want there about frame per second and graphics as long as we get a game that represent the series and runs stable that's all that matter i care more about the content then the graphics.right now as it is the game looks very realistic visually and based on the gameplay is running fast capturing the speed and thrills that need for speed is known for.

I'm not starting a console war or PC vs console debate.
Relax, there isn't even that much we know about features, cars map and storyline.
 
Honestly this site is about racing and cars..can we stop with the frame per second and graphics argument honestly this is the reason why some of you don't get the features that you want.because a lot of resources go into making the game pretty therefore we end up getting 90% graphics 10% gameplay.lets talk about features,cars,map,storyline and customization.We already know consoles can barely push 30 frames per second at the moment with all max resources , you guys already know how frostbite runs so open up a need for speed technical/graphics discussion thread and argue all you want there about frame per second and graphics as long as we get a game that represent the series and runs stable that's all that matter i care more about the content then the graphics.right now as it is the game looks very realistic visually and based on the gameplay is running fast capturing the speed and thrills that need for speed is known for.

I'm not starting a console war or PC vs console debate.
I was just asking a question pal. I didn't know what the fps was until now (Is there a problem with not wanting to be ignorant on a subject?) After seeing the screenshot that Jason showed, I can fully understand why it is at 30 :) and am looking forward to getting it!
 

Latest Posts

Back