Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gran Turismo Sport' started by GTPNewsWire, Dec 8, 2016.
Good point, now get prepared for someone to call you a fanboy
They can if they want, haha.
They can find me talking about the bad aspects of GTS in my post history.
Polyphony has its own definition of many words, in the same video they say how much did they improve since E3 - LOL
Since GT5 I don't believe a single word that Yamauchi is saying.
That's a matter of opinion, & in mine they do indeed still sound like vacuum cleaners. The joke may be dead to you, but not to everyone.
Concerns are legitimate, but the same comments over and over (like vacuum cleaner sounds) in every thread dealing with other topics is imo, disruptive. There's plenty of other threads to talk about (a possible lack of) career mode or (bad?) sounds. The threads don't all need to be littered with the same thing just because information comes out about 3 years of time spent into HDR.
Yes amazing physics combined with good AI, good sounds and a proper damage system. In all of those aspects it surpassed what Polyphony have been able to release (and looking at GTS footage it will probably remain that way).
True only changing time of day and weather options like clear/cloudy. Thing is that many devs include rain in their racing games but it's pretty much replicated as a dry track with low grip levels, and not a proper simulation of an actual wet surface and how it affects grip. It's in the pipeline for AC 2 probably in a few years, but only when it's properly simulated so it doesn't do injustice to AC's physics in the dry.
That's just plain wrong. GTS is better looking of course and not all of the eye candy is as polished in AC but that doesn't make it resemble a PS3 game in the slightest.
Yes career mode in AC is pretty useless, but you can have exciting racing offline. Just a matter of picking the combo yourself. With previous GT's the whole game was based around a sort of career mode. In the last 2 GT games 'GT mode' was pretty much a copy paste job from what they offered during the PS1 days already, but with less options like the absence of qualifying and fixed starts.
Now for GTS that has changed as the focus is clearly on online, but i doubt that even there it will be offering the kind of quality we've come to expect nowadays from iracing for example.
Tech demo as in pretty images to sell TV sets; yes it almost seems that way to me. AC nr. 1 feature is indeed physics like graphics are for GT, but i'd wager that the overall experience offers a whole lot more in AC as i mentioned above.
Anyway not an AC vs GT thread, but the tech demo statement about what we've seen from GTS so far (or rather what we haven't seen), does make a lot of sense.
I'm ready for the hate.
Imagine if they had worked on the AI or career mode for 3 years
All very good points, I completely agree with you. And there's always the elephant in the room that even I am tired of mentioning: AC did all of that with a fraction of PoDi's budget. How come Kazunori & Co. churn out such underwhelming results that even pale in comparison to those of their competition when they have multiple times the economic resources and, by extention, the technical and human resources? If PoDi's products were stuck with the same issues as their competitors I'd get it, maybe they're all facing the same unsurmountable hurdle but PoDi fails at something absolutely critical: they lack common sense ('"We'll waste our time making wind-tunnels that you'll never get. Instead, enjoy a Le Mans race with cars from entirely different eras) and they completely disregard their fans/customers ("What's that? You want a car famous all over the world that's in every other game and previous tracks of our own design? Nope, no Supra Mk. IV or Seattle for you. Here's some faux cars we made-up and Fisherman's Ranch"). Forza is able to make a much richer gameplay experience, R3E is able to make unbelievable sounds, AC is able to provide great physics, what's keeping GT from achieving any of those or even all of them?
Rather than a statement, the "tech demo" bit is just an opinion but it seems to me that it's not just my opinion as it has ringed a bell with others in this thread. And I guess that's what irks me about GTS the most: tech Demo product at full game development cost and time and with full game pretentions. Sure, only time will tell, we haven't seen the finished product, yadda yadda yadda, but what we're seeing gives us plenty of reasons to be pessimistic and even more so considering PoDi's track record.
I couldnt' agree more with both your post and your signature .
Agreed! Oh, and don't forget about the livery editor.
I would never complain (maybe) nor have a 'certain member' sneak into my post history again.
They're all related, but the end effect is different. HDR means High Dynamic Range, and dynamic range is just the ratio of the most intense thing to the least intense - i.e. the brightest to darkest in this case.
Think of it as "HDR" processes, like in games and in photography, allowing for the reproduction of a wider range of input brightnesses onto the same limited output range.
In games, typically global tone mapping is employed, where the whole screen (rendered at a higher dynamic range, somehow) is scaled to the output. This gives that "accommodation" effect moving between bright and dark areas.
In photographs it's more usual to use local tone mapping to combine parts of different pictures, taken at different exposures, say, into the same output. This gives a more vivid image with more detail in what would be overblown highlights and murky shadows normally, but it can often look surreal.
What these new HDR displays mean is that you don't have to squeeze it all down so much, the size of the HDR window in the processes described above is that much wider, and so in actual fact there is less need for them altogether if you can just display the intended result directly more of the time.
It's a really positive thing to be happening, in my opinion.
...I know you meant it in jest, but hey, I'm fairly sure not all 200 of PDI staff worked on HDR exclusively for the last three years.
I mean, you can't ask the AI guys to work on graphics now, can you? That'd be like.... like asking a pro wrestler to, I don't know, ice skate in the Olympics or something. They could do it, but they'd suck at it.
My grandad built Assetto Corsa with nothing but his bare hands and a spoon!
AND IT ONLY TOOK HIM 2.99 YEARS!
For all you know, they could have been. It's not like they only do one thing at a time.
HDR is pretty wonky when choosing between HDR TVs, as some TVs handle HDR better than others even though they might carry the HDR10 certification. Some TVs can even do HDR but do not carry the certification, like what Sony does. IMO to get the best out of HDR you need a TV that checks all the boxes for HDR10 delivery, and a lot of TVs don't actually check every box.
Guys, remember that GT is also a tool for Sony to be the technical showcase for the latest technology so I wouldn't put all the blame on Kaz or PD lol. If they were third party, of course they wouldn't have to worry about implementing HDR or whatever.
Let's just be thankful that PD always put on the effort to not only provide an up to date experience, but also attempting to future proof their work whether or not it works out.
We may be saying why today, but in the future we'll be glad they did. To mentally situate yourself with the thought of ignoring the few, and focusing on the majority can be fatal if you're someone that wants to be relevant in the industry. The key is to not ignore the few that may be able to benefit from it, but to provide a platform so that a new group from those few can develop and expand. That's simply how we evolve and adapt to new technologies. Back then it was 720p vs 1080p. Heck most ps3 games was running 720p while PD went nuts and tried to do 1080p even if it wasn't the full resolution. Remember GT4 1080i as well? How many people or ps2 games were even running in HD back then?
4k and HDR is now simply the technology they are pushing.
Now that is PD being PD.
The future-proofing PD I've known.
Yes they are all related but in a very confusing way.
If you think about the old gaming HDR and the photography HDR they are quite opposite. The old gaming HDR blows out highlights and cuts out shadows to create the feeling of a difference in the amount of light. However in HDR photography the goal is to maximise the information in the image and not to blow out highlights and cut shadows out. Cameras with poor dynamic range result in a similar image as with old HDR gaming (i.e. blown out highlights and shadows cut out.) This is why I think the old gaming HDR is a bad and confusing term. It results in an image with low dynamic range.
The new gaming HDR however is a fitting name, I think because the screen actually shows a high dynamic range of luminosity.
Their lighting model it brings gfx to life. I do not care too much about photo mode too much but I love watching cars go on track and it looks great to me on my MBP without retina display so it should be fine on my TV as well
I do not think HDR TV is required. Having said that HDR is more important feature than 4K resolution.
Imagine if they'd worked on anything for three years.
Hmm, "nits".... "catch the bug".... "fine-tooth comb"? I see what you did, but didn't (?), do there.
This is true, but is also true for current "non-HDR" displays; many of them use 6-bits per colour with various tricks (like dithering) to get closer to the 8-bit range.
Then there's all the issues with contrast ratio of the hardware, and gamma correction and viewing environment etc. etc.!
But it's new tech, and once things settle down a bit, it might be a bit more straight forward. Hopefully.
The output dynamic range is the same whether with game "HDR" or photography "HDR", i.e. not HDR at all, as you say. The difference is the range that went into the final image, or rather how it is used.
In both cases you mention, it is not true HDR simply because the output is not HDR, but the locally tone-mapped images do a better job of compressing the detail into one image without the loss of contrast and granularity associated with squeezing the full range into the limited range ignorantly (equivalent to turning the HDR rendering off in a game). The input is still HDR, by comparison, which has the benefits mentioned, namely translating more of the dynamic range information of the input into the output, if only artificially.
A camera not capturing a high dynamic range is one thing, but even with those that can get close to the (single-scene) dynamic range of the human eye, you're going to have the problem of reproduction, either to print or to a display.
I'd recommend a read of the Tone Mapping article on Wikipedia, as it explains it far better than I could. Again, games typically use global tone mapping and photography uses local tone mapping (aside from post-process exposure adjustments e.g. with RAW format).
On that basis, game HDR can be though to basically render to its equivalent of RAW, then apply a post-process effect to every frame to determine the "exposure" level. And, typically, it does clamp the image from the wider source to the restricted output - but since the scenes are dynamic, it doesn't really matter, because you can just look slightly to the left and get a different exposure level. The point was to bring life to a scene and enhance contrast and, hence, vividness and "realism" on a limited gamut display.
I agree totally that widening the output gamut is a massive change and, indeed, represents true HDR, but it would be for nothing without the advances made with HDR rendering already.
Yeah most of that flew right over my head but thanks anyway.
Haha, sorry about that!
A simple-ish way to think of it is in terms of numbers, if that helps. (These numbers do not mean anything, they are not representative of the actual differences, just illustrative.)
Say the real world is 0-100, but your display can only do something like 10-20, then you need a way to compress that excess width into what the display can do. A game, then, might (in the ideal case) render in the range 0-100 to capture all the detail, but it still has to get it down to fit the display.
One way is just to adjust the whole image, mapping the minimum of 0 to 10 and bringing the maximum down from 100 to 20, and scaling all others in between (losing data in the process, like colour compression or audio resampling). This will look washed out and dull, and lose nuance and detail in tones.
Another way is to map a window from the image to the output, say map only 50-60 from the renderer into the 10-20 of the display, then, if the scene should get darker in-game, shift that window down to 30-40 instead. You keep the contrast in each scene (because the width is the same), but you lose range either side of the window: blown out highlights and cut out shadows. This is like choosing exposure on a camera.
A compromise is to do both, say by mapping a slightly wider range, e.g. 30-60 into 10-20, which I think is the norm in games. This yields a balance of lost contrast and lost range. Again, this can vary frame by frame, and is really not too dissimilar to the way gamma correction works, although they are used for slightly different reasons.
Local tone-mapping is more complicated, in that each pixel gets its own unique window / mapping, usually in order to preserve the contrast of individual features, separately from others within the same scene.
What these new displays do is widen the output, e.g. to 10-40 instead, meaning more contrast for any given scene. What PD have done is widen their renderer's gamut as well, to fully take advantage.
Before HDR rendering, artists would make assets (e.g. textures) and mix them all together by eye to fit the required feel of the scene, effectively compressing the dynamic range of each asset individually. Then the scene would be lit within these restrictions also. HDR complicates that process until you go fully physically-based (i.e. measurements; relevant), but that's not appropriate for all games.
One more three year... imo. **** you PD.
Really? I would have thought that was long in the past now, far away like 4:3 aspect ratio…
They seemingly blowed the gamut up well beyond what current display technology can afford, with questionable advantages specifically when the argument of unprecedented accuracy is brought to the table.
That was more understandable. The terminology is foreign for me but I think I get the point.
Sounds like vacuum cleaners? You mean, just like real cars do?
Check this video at 1:22 and compare it to the vacuum cleaner below:
Apparently so (example; "super cheap IPS"), although it is not advertised clearly. It's mostly with cheaper displays, or very fast ones.
The advantages are future proofing for future tech that will deliver on the promise of greater colour range, greater artistic flexibility with regard to the compression schemes used (they are not limited to a narrow render gamut and can change how much they use as and when) and no more ugly dithering.