Racesimcentral.com to make an "E3 Special Report" on GT5. IT'S OUT, watch @ 1st post

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coxis
  • 254 comments
  • 23,628 views
phosphor112
Auto-stereoscopic technology (like in the 3DS) gets better head on image quality, but beyond that, normal stereoscopic technology is better. You can ask anyone who has used the 3DS, the 3D effect WON'T STAY UNLESS you are staring at it within the 5-10 degrees of viewing angle, it's just the downside to the parallax filters that the technology uses.
Click to expand...

This will get better over time as the technology improves.

Remember early LCD/flat screen TVs and monitors? The viewing angle was so small the screen was completely blank at a 45 degree angle, which if you have your TV situated in the corner of a room... is pretty bad.
 
phosphor112
Auto-stereoscopic technology (like in the 3DS) gets better head on image quality, but beyond that, normal stereoscopic technology is better. You can ask anyone who has used the 3DS, the 3D effect WON'T STAY UNLESS you are staring at it within the 5-10 degrees of viewing angle, it's just the downside to the parallax filters that the technology uses.
Click to expand...

For now in 3DS it's about 20 degrees (or more), and people saying that it's even more, but starts loosing 3D effect, but still sharp.It's just works.

Agree completely with previous post! 👍

Again.I mean 3DS has very good implementation of 3D.Even it's TOO good to be true for someone...;) I'm not trying to say it's BETTER than normal 3D, but it's better on another side - no glasses, no problems.I don't bother with "20" degree limitation - it's good enough.
 
Last edited:
Mr Latte
GT5P in 1080p mode is not 1920x1080 FULL HD (Misleading but has 1080 vertical lines). It uses 1280x1080 with 2x AA (thats a huge drop in pixels compared to Full HD).
Click to expand...

I agree. There is a noticeable difference in display quality between the two in TVs and monitors.

Mr Latte
GT5P in 720p mode uses 1280x720 but with 4X AA (2x additional AA)

The differences have been argued in the forums in the past, personally Id say its not major benifit, noticable yes. The differences sometimes seen are as much dependant on the actual screen used in its hardware scaling and picture processing so reports from people will vary in just how good the benifits are. The main thing is 1080p mode does not do much to improve jaggies like in how PC games really benifit and these seem to be more to do with limatations the games lighting/shadow techniques used. It does however in many cases give a sharper image.

SRT are one of few people to come away so impressed with the 3DTV.
Ive already been in discussion with "DG @ SRT" to hopefully have a SRT 3D Special Report. It could look into the PS3 3D games and also options from Nvidia/ATi on PC.
Click to expand...

So as per you and phosphor112, GT5 will output at a reduced 1080p HD in 2D the same as GT5P.
Not at the full 1080p HD resolution, as we have been led to believe.

Is that correct?
 
Seismica
This will get better over time as the technology improves.

Remember early LCD/flat screen TVs and monitors? The viewing angle was so small the screen was completely blank at a 45 degree angle, which if you have your TV situated in the corner of a room... is pretty bad.
Click to expand...

For the viewing angle to increase, they'll have to use a completely new technology, because the way they work makes it impossible to increase the viewing angel by that much.

sharpparallax.jpg


If anything, you'd have to use a lenticular approach. Lenticular lenses are what create those little pictures that change images when you look at them from another angle. I can guess how they work (since it uses those lenticular lenses) but I'm not sure how well they work in real world applications. Supposedly they have a viewing angle of about 45 degrees...

alucard0712
For now in 3DS it's about 20 degrees (or more), and people saying that it's even more, but starts loosing 3D effect, but still sharp.It's just works.

Agree completely with previous post! 👍

Again.I mean 3DS has very good implementation of 3D.Even it's TOO good to be true for someone...;) I'm not trying to say it's BETTER than nAormal 3D, but it's better on another side - no glasses, no problems.I don't bother with "20" degree limitation - it's good enough.
Click to expand...

I'm expecting a two type solution to 3D in the near future. Auto-stereoscopic for mobile, and glasses for home/entertainment use. The lack of glasses for mobile 3D is perfect, and viewing angle is not a problem if only you are looking at it, but to get that full home theater effect, glasses will be needed. Other methods are still very experimental and wont be cheap (or on the market) any time soon, so for now, that is the way I can see this 3D trend to be going.

SuperCobraJet
So as per you and phosphor112, GT5 will output at a reduced 1080p HD in 2D the same as GT5P.
Not at the full 1080p HD resolution, as we have been led to believe.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Well, we aren't 100% sure. We don't have he game in our hands so it's impossible to get direct feed data. Though, the assumption is if they are using the same approach as GT5p, yes it will only be a native 1280x1080p with a horizontal buffer to create the 1920x1080 upscale.
 
Last edited:
phosphor112
For the viewing angle to increase, they'll have to use a completely new technology, because the way they work makes it impossible to increase the viewing angel by that much.

*2D vs 3D image*
Click to expand...

I only said the viewing angle would get better over time :)

I'm not under the illusion that you can achieve the same viewing angle we have in todays 2D TVs, I understand that there is restrictions caused by the nature of 3D technology. But it will improve as the technology advances, i'm sure of it. It's one of the key areas that 3D technology needs to improve in, and I feel this is one area that manufacturers/designers will focus on.

Also,

1080p =/= Full HD

Full HD refers to the 1920x1080 pixels, I think. Whereas 1080p only refers to the vertical count, and the p stands for progressive and relates to the refresh rate of the pixels. (I don't think refresh is the right term... I can't think of the word).

So GT5 will be in 1080p but not full HD. As for 3D, I don't think that information has been disclosed? 1080p is the games native resolution. It would be stupid to downscale it to 720p, but it might be necessary, depending on how much extra strain it puts on the hardware.
 
Last edited:
Seismica
I only said the viewing angle would get better over time :)

I'm not under the illusion that you can achieve the same viewing angle we have in todays 2D TVs, I understand that there is restrictions caused by the nature of 3D technology. But it will improve as the technology advances, i'm sure of it. It's one of the key areas that 3D technology needs to improve in, and I feel this is one area that manufacturers/designers will focus on.

Also,

1080p =/= Full HD

Full HD refers to the 1920x1080 pixels, I think. Whereas 1080p only refers to the vertical count, and the p stands for progressive and relates to the refresh rate of the pixels. (I don't think refresh is the right term... I can't think of the word).

So GT5 will be in 1080p but not full HD. As for 3D, I don't think that information has been disclosed? 1080p is the games native resolution. It would be stupid to downscale it to 720p, but it might be necessary, depending on how much extra strain it puts on the hardware.
Click to expand...

It drops down to 720p because HDMI 1.3 has data throughput restrictions. It's not possible to shove that sort of data across that cable like that, that's why new 3D tv's have HDMI 1.4 instead of 1.3 (which is what the PS3 has)
 
I wish they could come up with 3D Contact Lenses instead of 3D glasses so everyone would be happy. 3D technology is still wearing diapers, let it evolve a little bit more just like everything else.

Remember how big USB flash drives were when they just came out? There were some as big as cigarrette packs and their capacity was negligible. Let technology evolve, I'm sure that this technology will be way more mature by the next generation of consoles.
 
Coxis
I wish they could come up with 3D Contact Lenses instead of 3D glasses so everyone would be happy. 3D technology is still wearing diapers, let it evolve a little bit more just like everything else.

Remember how big USB flash drives were when they just came out? There were some as big as cigarrette packs and their capacity was negligible. Let technology evolve, I'm sure that this technology will be way more mature by the next generation of consoles.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, I think 3D technology is finally taking off. Of course it's still just learning how to walk, but 3D technology has existed since 1838. Of course it was just anaglyphic then, but 3D has improved a lot since. You are right about one thing though, it will continue to evolve, more and more quickly.
 
Seismica
I only said the viewing angle would get better over time :)
Click to expand...

Honestly I am not sure how it would... as shown the way parallax passive 3D works you are looking through angled slits... I don't think there is any way to make the slits wider or somehow otherwise viewable from other angles and still do their job... the very basis of parallax 3D is that viewing angle is limited through each slit to ensure the eye sees only what it should see. I cannot imagine any way to increase viewing angle of parallax 3D methods without actually degrading the very process that makes the 3D work.

Full HD refers to the 1920x1080 pixels, I think. Whereas 1080p only refers to the vertical count, and the p stands for progressive and relates to the refresh rate of the pixels. (I don't think refresh is the right term... I can't think of the word).
Click to expand...

The P stands for progressive which is to say it's not interlaced. Interlacing sends every other line of image data in an alternating pattern (all odds one frame and all evens the next) to provide a higher resolution picture at the same bandwidth (ie 1080i uses only half the bandwidth of 1080p). Technically 1080p does only mean 1080 vertical lines of resolution but in current day use, anything but 1920x1080 is kind of considered shenanigans... I believe this was the case with GT5P.
 
Devedander
Honestly I am not sure how it would... as shown the way parallax passive 3D works you are looking through angled slits... I don't think there is any way to make the slits wider or somehow otherwise viewable from other angles and still do their job... the very basis of parallax 3D is that viewing angle is limited through each slit to ensure the eye sees only what it should see. I cannot imagine any way to increase viewing angle of parallax 3D methods without actually degrading the very process that makes the 3D work.
Click to expand...

People said the same about LCD's in general. Were they right? Nope.
 
Devedander
The P stands for progressive which is to say it's not interlaced. Interlacing sends every other line of image data in an alternating pattern (all odds one frame and all evens the next) to provide a higher resolution picture at the same bandwidth (ie 1080i uses only half the bandwidth of 1080p). Technically 1080p does only mean 1080 vertical lines of resolution but in current day use, anything but 1920x1080 is kind of considered shenanigans... I believe this was the case with GT5P.
Click to expand...

In terms of TV/Broadcasting and films (Blu-ray) I completely agree.

But as you know, rendering in full HD in real time, at 60 frames per second is a totally different ball game. Especially on the limited platforms of PS3 and Xbox 360. It's still only barely do-able on PC without spending a four figure sum on the hardware.

phosphor112
It drops down to 720p because HDMI 1.3 has data throughput restrictions. It's not possible to shove that sort of data across that cable like that, that's why new 3D tv's have HDMI 1.4 instead of 1.3 (which is what the PS3 has)
Click to expand...

Memory and Data bandwidth counts as hardware :sly: but thanks for clearing that up.
 
RedSuinit
People said the same about LCD's in general. Were they right? Nope.
Click to expand...

I can't say because I wasn't one to make that claim at the time, however I don't see how that argument can be a base for this one... Just because one aspect of a technology improved (or didn't) is not any reason to believe another aspect will or won't.

If you understand the fundamental functionality of parallax passive 3D, you can see that what makes it work is also what makes the limitation... you can't really trade one without the getting rid of the other.

Let's try it this way, do you have any theoretical idea how it could improve? I am not saying you have to be able to come up with a solution to say it's possible, but I am curious if anyone actually thinks they see a way aruond it?

To me it seems pretty straightforward that it's along the lines of saying "those one way turnstyles, one day you will be able to go both ways through them"... but the very way a one way turnstyle works makes it impossible to go both ways without breaking the functionality of the turnstyle.
 
Seismica
In terms of TV/Broadcasting and films (Blu-ray) I completely agree.

But as you know, rendering in full HD in real time, at 60 frames per second is a totally different ball game. Especially on the limited platforms of PS3 and Xbox 360. It's still only barely do-able on PC without spending a four figure sum on the hardware.
Click to expand...

I was talking in terms of marketing speak... like when you say 1080p you really expect 1920x1080 (since everything pretty much comes in HDTV 16:9 ratios nowadays).

To me seeing "1080p" on the lable and not getting 1920x1080 is like buying a car that is advertised as 6 cylinders however only 3 of them ever fire at one time.
 
Devedander
To me seeing "1080p" on the lable and not getting 1920x1080 is like buying a car that is advertised as 6 cylinders however only 3 of them ever fire at one time.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be equivalent to 1080i? :p
 
Devedander
I was talking in terms of marketing speak... like when you say 1080p you really expect 1920x1080 (since everything pretty much comes in HDTV 16:9 ratios nowadays).

To me seeing "1080p" on the lable and not getting 1920x1080 is like buying a car that is advertised as 6 cylinders however only 3 of them ever fire at one time.
Click to expand...

There are some TV brands that still advertise as 1080p or 720p and actually aren't the 16:9 ratio that they are. Like I've seen "720p" tv's advertised but actually are 1024x720 and it does a horizontal scale.to make the image look correct.
 
phosphor112
There are some TV brands that still advertise as 1080p or 720p and actually aren't the 16:9 ratio that they are. Like I've seen "720p" tv's advertised but actually are 1024x720 and it does a horizontal scale.to make the image look correct.
Click to expand...

Yes when talking about hardware and software there is a little bit of leeway between the wording... however I think the example you give was mostly from back in the day of Plasmas... The only exceptions I have seen since then are displays that are 16:10 computer resolution displays and thus may be labled 720p but really be 1366x768
 
drivatar
But they aren't necessarily native 720p.

The SDK supports the following resolutions at 60fps in 3D mode:

1280 x 1470
1024 x 1470
960x 1470
800 x 1470
640 x 1470
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but all the games so far fall under the red part I marked above. It says 1470 because its 720p x 2 (for the image twice) + 30 rows of pixels that helps discern the left and right image for the eyes.

720
x 2
---
1440
+ 30
----
1470
 
Not so sure GT5 will use that resolution in 3D mode.
If so thats a higher demand in the number of pixels over the 1080p Mode

Even the next one, the 1024 mode would still be higher so its possible GT5 in 3D could be
960x 1470

Funny Darin and Sean never mentioned more noticable jaggies which was reported at the shown version during CES in Jan.
Maybe its been since improved but someone should ask Darin to comment on that if the resolution looked to be reduced?
 
I was surprised how little time they gave to discuss the physics. It sounds like they think that the physics haven't changed from GT5P, which is worrying. Because i thought the gt academy demo felt HEAPS better and really different from prologue. And by the sounds of this they didn't keep those physics...?

I don't think they played the GT academy demo.... or did they?
 
Other PC game journalists played GT5 and said that it felt more refined than Prologue. Why Darin and Sean didn't say likewise... well, that's been mulled over already.
 
lucag120
I was surprised how little time they gave to discuss the physics. It sounds like they think that the physics haven't changed from GT5P, which is worrying. Because i thought the gt academy demo felt HEAPS better and really different from prologue. And by the sounds of this they didn't keep those physics...?

I don't think they played the GT academy demo.... or did they?
Click to expand...
From the youtube comments:
simracingtonight
I said the time trial physics were similar. Something that most don't understand is that the most important part of the physics are the tire models. Making a new tire model isn't a matter of tweaking some numbers. It takes a lot of fine tuning and is rarely perfect. Sure the time trial cars were a little harder to drive, that IMO didn't make the physics better. I don't think a rework to the tire model has been done.
Click to expand...
 
That kinda sounds like "Dan Greenwood" going on about tyres.
Although we dont know what build the physics were in the GT5 demo at E3

Its wonderful having tyre physics but its also great to have body roll and something called suspension. 👍
GT uses those better than FM series.
 
Last edited:
That's something I completely forgot about with Forza. Every game has street cars that run flat as a quarter around turns, as if they all have racing suspensions even when stock. Well, there is a hint of it in F3, but just a bit.
 

Latest Posts

Back