The thing that updates cannot fix. What is the future for GT?

[Tornado]

Now does this hold true for games too? I think it does. Perhaps not as much, but I think it does. I guess, in a way, I feel Gran Turismo does not do a good enough job of 'suspending disbelief.'

Have you ever guys watched a film on one of those TV's that has a mega-frame rate mode? It's surreal and terrible at the same time. I remember watching black hawk down on at 60fps (possibly higher) and everything that was so convincing about the original film just looked fake and amateur at 60fps. It was exactly the same film, but all of the magic is gone.

Really? Does the "it's that way in movies so why not make it that way in games" argument hold any more weight on the third page than it did in the OP?


They aren't the same medium.

 

[Illogical]

Whoa...hold on. If your MAX refresh rate is 24hz, wouldn't that make 3d mode 12hz?? Unless DLP's are able to do something different? Doesn't a 3D TV alternate between left and right eye each frame effectively cutting the rate in half? Unless it staggers the image...hmmm now there's an idea.

it will display 3D at 720p 60hz x2 (720p@120hz) 60hz to each eye. glasses flash the lenses back and forth giving each eye 60hz screen shot. Like I said, mine is 2007 (Samsung HLT-6176s), the standard was 1080p@24hz. The firmware is capped at that I assumed. I know my TV has a GAME option for the display, but i was told to leave it off so i don't kill my TV. I use a switch and run everything to HDMI 3 because that's the only 3D input on my TV and I watch DirecTVs 3D channels also

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

it will display 3D at 720p 60hz x2 (720p@120hz) 60hz to each eye. glasses flash the lenses back and forth giving each eye 60hz screen shot.

Ah, didn't notice the part where you said 720p.

Really? Does the "it's that way in movies so why not make it that way in games" argument hold any more weight on the third page than it did in the OP?


They aren't the same medium.

They aren't the same medium, but they are similar and have similar intents. I had reservations about stating anything about framerate. I guess my hesitation was well warranted...

But yeah. Horribly pixelated particle effects, shockingly bad screen tearing, extremely poor shadow quality, low sound quality, pop-in, poor texture mapping, 2d environment models, contrived lighting. 60fps. Totally worth it.

 

[Zevious Z]

Ah, didn't notice the part where you said 720p.



But yeah. Horribly pixelated particle effects, shockingly bad screen tearing, extremely poor shadow quality, low sound quality, pop-in, poor texture mapping, 2d environment models, contrived lighting. 60fps. Totally worth it.

hmm, the funny thing is I honestly don't notice any of those "issues" unless I actually focus on them. I'd also take exception to the "shockingly" bad screen tearing. Theres is some, but its not anywhere close to shockingly bad. Otoh, I notice instantly when the framerate drops and it really bugs me. So yeah, totally worth it to me.

 

[lunarwolf]

solved: just play NFS

i choose not to play NFS and hope GT would not be that foolish to move in that direction

 

[kimi123]

NFS games are 30fps. GT5 is more toward realistic look. For most video games 30fps is fine but for racing sims it is not ideal. What they need to do is include cars, tracks from other games. Shift games have nice cars, tracks selection and proper driver animations, even paddle shift look good. Have more city tracks, night racing but always stick with realistic look and feel obviously

 

[avens]

I really don't think you can effectively perceive any framerate higher than 60hz. I mean 30fps -> to 60fps is noticeable, but even that is on a subconscious level for the average person. Your brain cannot process that much information that quickly for 120hz or higher. There might be an infinitesimal perception of it, but I can't imagine it ever being worth it for the massive memory usage it would require.

By the way, any youtube videos comparing 30fps to 60fps are completely useless, youtube automatically downscales all videos above 30fps to 30fps. Unless they have changed things in recent times. The only 60fps streaming service I know of is gamersyde.

http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_gran_turismo_5_tgs_rain_gameplay_dark_-17179_en.html

Compared to youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7fyaMqGcG0

Bring up both in your browser and observe the difference. It is definitely noticeable.

and there we go again. From this and your other posts it's obvious you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, for example confusing hz with fps.

As I said, try it for yourself. It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to run a pc game and use the console command that shows fps (or use fraps). Try 30 fps first, then 60, then 120 (125 if it is a fps game), and more.

I even posted a link in which it shows people currently play with more than 300fps, sigh.

and to add a bit of info here, gt5 actually uses motion blur, which is deemed to be "noob-ish" by the sim racing guys from lfs, iracing and such, whom btw all play with 120fps and more.

 

[Illogical]

and to add a bit of info here, gt5 actually uses motion blur, which is deemed to be "noob-ish" by the sim racing guys from lfs, iracing and such, whom btw all play with 120fps and more.

I assume that's because the PS3 can't handle much more though

 

[Zevious Z]

....the sim racing guys from lfs, iracing and such, whom btw all play with 120fps and more.

well, thats not entirely correct. Lots of the iRacing crowd (including myself when I was a member) have issues maintaining a rock solid 60fps with the graphics maxed. That just goes to show you how demanding the physics side of the equation can be - as visually austere as iRacing is (even compared to GT5) folks still have to turn off things like the 3d shadow effects to keep the frames up where they really need to be (unless of course you are lucky enough to have a really high end system). When you are doing 190mph around a bumpy track only mere feet (or inches) away from other cars you need pin-point control.

 

[AMS97F1]

So you guys are telling me you can See the difference in the smoothness of the game? Take a look at BF3, then compare to MW3 and they run, from what any normal person can see, the same. Even though BF3 is 30FPS and MW3 60FPS

 

[Tenacious D]

This subject comes up periodically when someone discovers or rediscovers some racing game, or soccer game, or shooter or whatever, in which the thread starter has some sort of individual epiphany. They feel like they're "there" somehow, and they make some sort of post in which they struggle to get their heads around just what it is that gave them that "thereness." The problem is that whatever clicked with them often doesn't click with most of the readers. Just take the image displayed by the game itself. Some want a vivid, lush technicolor world with lots of color. Some turn the color down to the point that everything looks faded. Others like the bluish hue of a video feed, because they're used to that on Speed or whatever channel they watch racing on.

I'm one of those that just doesn't get most of what the OP is going on about with Shifty. I don't find the race environs to be all that awesome. It's another over-the-top EA racing carnival thing I think is goofy. I understand the whole need of "thereness," but developers have been doing their best to provide that, and it's not easy to do. They all try their tricks to make things convincing. Forza has randomly animated crowds, and in F2, had doppler effects on the Euro-style airhorns the crowds tend to use - that lasted all of one game because it sounded lame, and then there's the terrible roar every car has in F4, even stock, though the car damage is very good. Grid has a lot of destructible/movable objects such as tirewalls which explode into bouncing, rolling tires when you slam into them, and fantastic damage - of course the racing physics stink. Toca had some sort of story mode which stitched together a lot of unrelated racing types, which some people liked but most just wanted to avoid.

Bringing a whole world to life is hard on the system though. In Toca and Forza 4, most of the bot cars don't make their own sound, just yours and possibly your nearby competitor. Grid's physics are dumbed down a lot to give the CPU enough overhead to manage those flying tires. And everyone knows about GT5's graphic issues, mostly due to lack of ram.

The only thing I think works is putting as much life into the environment as you can get. Trackside, this means decently animated crowds, which I suppose Forza has cornered the best right now. You can have active pit crews, and when you're in the pits, good sounds of them working on your car.

In the car and with the cars around you, I know all too well all the complaints that people have over Gran Turismo's sound accuracy and liveliness. Race cars and supercars could sound more aggressive. Tire squeals could use more volume. Wind could stand some work, as right now it kind of sounds like a hiss, and some think it's too loud. The interior sounds of Shify are also way too exaggerated according to many posters, and most of us don't like the extreme inertia effects with the cameras. However, some of that done carefully would add to the racing experience. Having sounds such as the chassis and body creaking and popping around turns, better backfire and other things would be nice.

Another thing is that Polyphony needs to give us the ability to adjust a number of things to our liking. The volume slider thing, giving us the capacity to balance out the engine roar, tire sounds, transmission and turbo racket, wind and environment noise, interior sounds etc would be a big help. The way it is now, a number of people find it dissatisfying.

Another big aspect are the driver views. EVERY view should be adjustable. Having most cars with roof cam and a handful with hood cam is really annoying. I find just about every single cockpit cam to be too low and too far back. I know it's a compromise to give everyone a good look at the environment and rearview mirror, but I think it's a bad one. All four views: front, interior, roof and chase, should be adjustable in this fashion:

• Camera location, aim, and field of view.
• Fixed/sway amount.
• Inertia.
• Shake/judder/collision depth and smoothing.
• "Look into turn" amount.

These would help everyone tailor their racing experience to their liking. If I don't like how far down and back the cockpit view is, I move it up and forward. If someone wants a hood cam, they just stick it there in the options. You could even delete views you don't use, and restore them if you change your mind. As far as putting people "there," that's up to the individual, but it would likely get us closer.

And then there's the whole issue of how simulation you want Gran Turismo to get. I'm with SlipZtrEm, LMSCorvette and the sim guys on this one, in that GT6 could stand to have increasingly more realistic restrictions and rules patterned after real world racing leagues. These wouldn't be any more onerous than those we had to follow in GT2. I even want complete sim racing mode all to itself, so that you old school GT fans won't have to mess with it unless you really want to. And I've been proposing a deep progression path as LMSVette has since 2005. I'm going to have a discussion with amar212 over these, as he may have a little inside path to some of the SONY CE Europe people who might pass this on to PD.

 

[dr_slump]

I really don't think you can effectively perceive any framerate higher than 60hz. I mean 30fps -> to 60fps is noticeable, but even that is on a subconscious level for the average person. Your brain cannot process that much information that quickly for 120hz or higher. There might be an infinitesimal perception of it, but I can't imagine it ever being worth it for the massive memory usage it would require.

and there we go again. From this and your other posts it's obvious you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, for example confusing hz with fps.

Hz = beats per second
fps = frames per second

For his post you can equate <frames> with <beats>
Cause in his case, it absolutely doesn't matter.

As I said, try it for yourself. It doesn't take more than 2 minutes to run a pc game and use the console command that shows fps (or use fraps). Try 30 fps first, then 60, then 120 (125 if it is a fps game), and more.

Tried it and absolutely couldn't see a difference between 60 and 120fps. Even between 30 and 60 it's hardly noticeable.

I even posted a link in which it shows people currently play with more than 300fps, sigh.

Well, they play with 300fps just to have it. It's not really needed, it doesn't help, but it's probably good for their ego.

and to add a bit of info here, gt5 actually uses motion blur, which is deemed to be "noob-ish" by the sim racing guys from lfs, iracing and such, whom btw all play with 120fps and more.

Not everyone plays with over 120fps.

 

[Imari]

The only thing I think works is putting as much life into the environment as you can get. Trackside, this means decently animated crowds, which I suppose Forza has cornered the best right now. You can have active pit crews, and when you're in the pits, good sounds of them working on your car.

I think you're right. Most games do the players car and the immediate track fairly well, but it tends to fall off steeply after that. I find the 24hr version of the Nurburgring in GT5 much more enjoyable than the "normal" version because of the extra crowds/campervans/etc on it. It's that extra step closer to showing a believable race weekend.

Something else that I find works oddly well is stuff in the air. Specifically, the blimp in iRacing. It's there for a reason (the blimp camera), it's small and not particularly distracting, but it provides a sense of scale and three dimensionality. It gives you a reason to look around, because it's otherwise very easy in racing games to ignore what happens in the top half of the screen. Very little happens above the horizon line in racing games. Shift attempts this with balloons and airplanes, and they're OK but I think they're too much. They would be better off toned down a bit to be less ostentatious.

 

[Tornado]

They aren't the same medium, but they are similar and have similar intents.

No they aren't and no they don't, because you don't control the action in movies.

But yeah. Horribly pixelated particle effects, shockingly bad screen tearing, extremely poor shadow quality, low sound quality, pop-in, poor texture mapping, 2d environment models, contrived lighting. 60fps. Totally worth it.

You need to get a replacement copy of GT5, because yours is shot. And yes, since I can easily tell when the game's framerate starts chugging compared to the 50-ish FPS is usually works at, it is worth it.


I'd also request proof that locking the framerate at 30 would get rid all of those things (considering trackside camera angles make the game run at 30 FPS and all of that stuff is still there), but I'm doubting you could provide it.

So you guys are telling me you can See the difference in the smoothness of the game? Take a look at BF3, then compare to MW3 and they run, from what any normal person can see, the same. Even though BF3 is 30FPS and MW3 60FPS

Its so nice that you keep trying to refute things that are common sense, but I'm afraid it is all for naught. There is a notable difference between a game running at 30 FPS and a game running at 60 FPS. I posted a video of a tech demo made purely to showcase 60FPS gameplay on the PSX, and even when throttled down by YouTube you can still see the visual difference between the 60FPS game and the 30FPS game.

 

[avens]

Hz = beats per second
fps = frames per second

For his post you can equate <frames> with <beats>
Cause in his case, it absolutely doesn't matter.
Tried it and absolutely couldn't see a difference between 60 and 120fps. Even between 30 and 60 it's hardly noticeable.

Well, they play with 300fps just to have it. It's not really needed, it doesn't help, but it's probably good for their ego.

Not everyone plays with over 120fps.

hz and fps are different technical terms, which are related to screen's refresh rate and frame rate of moving images (in this case coming from a video game) respectively.
While it may sound the same, it truly isn't. The best way to explain it is, as I said, to try it yourself: 120fps with a 60hz screen doesn't look well, but 125fps with a 120hz screen (preferably crt) looks much better.

everyone on this thread agrees that there's a noticeable difference between 60 and 120 fps, even more so between 30 and 60. That's the whole reason why competitive games have to run at 60 fps on consoles, such as first person shooters, racing and fighting games: 30 feels too choppy and unresponsive.
Maybe it has to do with your setup so it showed 60fps instead of 120. Did you disable vsync?

and about 300 fps, yes it is a bit overkill but it makes the game smoother and more responsive if paired with other settings (hz, physics and input rate for example).
Those settings, along with playing with 125 fps with a 120hz screen, are truly only a requirement for people who have been playing competitively for years in faster games than the racing genre.
This is a good opportunity to realize that racing sims/games almost don't have major competitions going on, for example the very first LAN event was last year, whereas other genres (mainly shooters and rts) have for more than 10 years. This is why these technical issues aren't well known here, but they have been discussed thoroughly.

ofc not everyone plays with over than 120/125 fps; that's more of a niche and maybe I shouldn't have put that very specific example.
Thing is it does make a difference to play with more steady fps. To put it straight, I'm 100% sure that no competitive pc player plays with less than 60 steady fps, in any currently played game whatsoever.


and to put an end to this argument, which comes from false statements and new (or at least casual) console gamers to be honest, this all has to do with motion blur. Almost every console game of this generation features it, so it....blurs the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

edit: This also has to do with lcd screens, because the image is refreshed a lot slower than crt screens, including 240hz tv screens (which are 60hz. That's just marketing) and 120hz lcd pc monitors (which are truly 120hz, but a crt's is much faster for other technical reasons). What I want to say is that if you want to try this please use your PC screen and not your tv, specially if it is a 120hz lcd monitor or even better a well configured crt.

 

[Imari]

No they aren't and no they don't, because you don't control the action in movies.

They're both mediums that communicate through the same hardware, screens and speakers. There are techniques for making the best use of that hardware that are common to both.

Its so nice that you keep trying to refute things that are common sense, but I'm afraid it is all for naught. There is a notable difference between a game running at 30 FPS and a game running at 60 FPS. I posted a video of a tech demo made purely to showcase 60FPS gameplay on the PSX, and even when throttled down by YouTube you can still see the visual difference between the 60FPS game and the 30FPS game.

I agree that there's a noticable difference (to me) between 30 and 60 fps in games. But are you trying to tell me that there's a difference between 30 fps and 60fps converted to 30fps? They're both 30fps, any difference perceived is as a result of differing source material (hence, not the frame rate) or the placebo effect.

 

[avens]

They're both mediums that communicate through the same hardware, screens and speakers. There are techniques for making the best use of that hardware that are common to both.

I agree that there's a noticable difference (to me) between 30 and 60 fps in games. But are you trying to tell me that there's a difference between 30 fps and 60fps converted to 30fps? They're both 30fps, any difference perceived is as a result of differing source material (hence, not the frame rate) or the placebo effect.

while I haven't seen the specific video you are talking about, it is a common technique to do that in gaming movies and it does make a noticeable difference. For example, the game footage is taken with the game running at 120fps (more than needed) but the actual movie runs at 30fps. It isn't a huge improvement, but it's something.

Well, nowadays the standard in those movies is 45fps, and in some cases 60, for the said reasons. Actually that might be a the easiest way possible to finally prove that 60fps is noticeably smoother than 30fps, if this offtopic carries on.


this has been a great offtopic, that will have no impact in the racing genre whatsoever because everything said here is already known by the industry for decades, so it'll never do competitive games running at 30 fps (not good enough) and it'll never do 120 fps games on consoles (big compromise on graphics and all current tv screens aren't good enough for that). Great.

 

[Imari]

while I haven't seen the specific video you are talking about, it is a common technique to do that in gaming movies and it does make a noticeable difference. For example, the game footage is taken with the game running at 120fps (more than needed) but the actual movie runs at 30fps. It isn't a huge improvement, but it's something.

Yes, but the difference you're seeing then isn't the frame rate. It's the different processing of taking say 4 frames of a 120fps feed and condensing it to 30fps.

This is not an acceptable way of approximating a higher frame rate feed, any more than adding motion blur to a lower frame rate feed is an acceptable way of approximating a higher frame rate feed. They're not the same.


But I agree, the interesting thing in this thread is not the frame rate discussion. As you say, those principles are well established. It's that given those fundamental constraints, how does a developer then create a product that is more immersive to a wide range of consumers? There will always be small groups that prefer any given setup, but the ideal is to reach a broad market.

 

[VQuick]

From time to time, I've seen a livery editor requested in a 'patch.' I don't really consider that to be within the realm of a simple update. KY had planned on it for GT5 and surely knows of the demand for it, so hopefully we'll see one in the next GT.

 

[avens]

And then there's the whole issue of how simulation you want Gran Turismo to get. I'm with SlipZtrEm, LMSCorvette and the sim guys on this one, in that GT6 could stand to have increasingly more realistic restrictions and rules patterned after real world racing leagues. These wouldn't be any more onerous than those we had to follow in GT2. I even want complete sim racing mode all to itself, so that you old school GT fans won't have to mess with it unless you really want to. And I've been proposing a deep progression path as LMSVette has since 2005. I'm going to have a discussion with amar212 over these, as he may have a little inside path to some of the SONY CE Europe people who might pass this on to PD.

about the specific issue of simulation in GT5 and the game being more immersive, I think most users are not playing the game the way it should be played, thus missing one of the most important aspects of the game which is driving skillfully.

Where I want to go with this is the following. As a recommendation to experienced players, the game becomes a whole different experience when turning every assist off, including TC, driving line, gear indicator (hud) and especially ABS (among others). Also try getting a wheel and use the cockpit cam.

And about GT6, I hope that A-spec events work just like in the forza series, so you gain more XP and credits if you play with as little driving aids as possible. It becomes an incentive to play the game without some aspects removed, but at the same time this doesn't become a requirement to complete it.


now the boring part.

Spoiler

There are 2 aspects: assists, and not using a wheel.

1.- Most people play with TC 5, driving line on and ABS 1. All of those are assists, which means the player is not experiencing the game as a whole but rather with some parts removed.
TC means no or less throttle control. With a fixed driving line there's a lot less experimentation and getting to know the track; some people say this is what killed the racing genre as we knew it. ABS 1 in GT5 is just too stable, or rather very easy to brake, to the point this is considered to have a hidden ASM assist. And about the other assists, there's the infamous SRF which has no disadvantages, the gear indicator in the HUD (which can now be removed since a couple of days), third person cam, among others.
Where I want to go with this is that assists make people not to learn throttle control (acceleration technique), not to learn the tracks (driving lines. braking points and overtaking properly), and not to learn how to brake (smooth driving, weight distribution, oversteer and understeer, making steady lap times, and braking technique itself). If you add SRF to the equation, it's like not playing the game at all, and most experienced players don't even try turning the fixed driving line nor ABS off because it makes the game harder, which means slower lap times for months, without any immediate rewards.

2.- As we all know, using a wheel is a lot more immersive. In the end it makes the game a lot more enjoyable to play.
Also there are hidden assists when using a ds3. This is one of those cases in which only an experienced person can notice it, but it does make a difference in stability, in being able to have full control of your car and in spin outs.
It obviously can't be a requirement to play certain events in GT6, but hopefully it is encouraged to buy one considering the immersion factor and that the game aims to be a simulator after all.
The way to do this is that wheels should allow you to drive considerably faster than a ds3, which is appealing to competitive players. This is not the case in GT5, since ds3 users have a shot against wheel players, and even they have a huge advantage in drifting.
Even if this might be a bit specific, I don't want the GT series to have the same problem LFS has with mouse users (yes, you can play the game with your mouse and it can be faster than a wheel) or what the fighting games community is experiencing right now, in which users have considerable advantages when using controllers that have buttons for movement instead of a stick. Racing games are meant to be played with a wheel, at least if you want to be be competitive and/or experience it completely.

 

[CSLACR]

This will be a long post. I'm writing it because I think that out of all the developers out there, I think that polyphony digital is the most passionate, but I think they are in need of new direction.

Today, for kicks, I decided to pop in NFS Shift (1). I was passively going to compare it to GT5 which is the vastly superior game. However after a while, I totally forgot about my original intent and was just hooked playing the game. I was just driving a stock S2000, but I must have taken it to every single track in the game before I realized I had just wasted a few hours. I can't remember the last time I was this lost in Gran Turismo.

A video game has a tough task to accomplish. It must engage you using only two senses, or in the case of a racing game, two and a half. A television is only capable of reaching you on the basis of sound and sight. Devices like rumble and force feedback begin to add feel to the equation, but it is far from a complete rendition of the real thing. Sight can also add a bit of perceived feel.

So on that basic thesis, the most important two aspects of a video game must be sight and sound. Why then, does Gran Turismo place it's heaviest compromises directly on both of these things?

Sure, technically GT5 totally whips Shift visually. Shift has far fewer polygon models, the texture resolution pales in comparison, and there is seemingly no AA to speak of. But, as Jeremy Clarkson says, this is a big, fully rounded voluptuous but, what Shift lacks in technical brilliance, it by far and away compensates for it with it's absolutely gorgeous artistic direction. Everything from the way the camera moves in the first person view, to the reflections of the wipers and instrument binnacle in the windshield, to the actual field of view, and beautiful material shaders seems to caress the viewer in digital beauty. The environments, too, are stunning. Not just in their attention to technical detail, but again the artistic touches. For example, the sky doesn't really look real to be honest; it looks better than that. There is a reason paintings are so appealing. They can, at their best, be something better and more special than reality. It's all about immersing the viewer in a world the artist creates. Some of the effects in shift border on cheesy and overdone, but overall it is a visual feast that I haven't seen in any other racing game. I can only hope that SMS keeps producing and puts their future games on a better physics engine.

I'm not entirely sure if it is just the Japanese nature of PD and their lack of creativity, but their relentless pursuit of absolute 'realism' (60fps, precise realistic environments, pixel-perfect photorealism) both creates a clinical, sterile environment, but also compromises the game in other regards. I can never feel truly immersed in GT5. It tries too hard to be 'real' and as a result anything out of the ordinary (pixelated smoke, jagged shadows, etc) instantly removes me from the game mentally. There is a very good reason why films run at 24fps instead of a more 'realistic' 60fps. At 24fps you see characters through a vignette to another world. At 60fps, you see actors on a stage. This is true for video games too. Also, GT5 compromises just about everything to maintain this awkward 60fps. Weather detail, particle effects, lighting effects, and sound are all likely negatively effected by the enormous memory hog of 60fps. The jagged shadows would likely be a thing of the past at 30 or 40fps.

On occasion, GT5 can look beautiful. For instance, racing at dawn at the Nurburgring is breathtakingly beautiful...but I can't help but think how much better it could be with a more deliberately designed sunrise. So what if it's faking it? As I implied earlier, there is a reason for the term 'artistic liberty.' Dynamic doesn't need to be sterile. As anyone who has played TES IV, Skyrim can attest, dynamic can be absolutely stunning. There are moments while playing Skyrim that I feel as though I'm looking into a painting. It is absolutely gorgeous.

As an aspiring architect, one thing that I've learned is that technically brilliant drawings never sell a project. Clients rarely even look at them. It's the ones that evoke emotion. It's the renders with the totally overdone sunset and beautifully impossible golden light piercing through. Where is this in Gran Turismo?


The sound thread covers that topic well enough. It pretty much sucks in GT5.

[short version- PD: should stop trying to emulate photography so much and instead indulge in a bit of painting]

Just my musings. This is very much a complaint thread. Deal with it.

GT5 looks so real in some ways the things that don't just ruin it, I'd much rather they get everything on par rather then some great with some pitiful. I don't know a great deal about frame rates, etc, but I've never gotten the immersion out of GT5 that I got out of any previous GT title.
I used to be able to jump in GT4 and cruise down the Nurb and pretend I was really driving, and that was with a DS3 even! Now, with GT5 as good as it can look, I've never once felt that sensation as though I was personally racing, and I even have a wheel now. It just feels like a video game to me. With a DS3 GT5 feels like trying to drive a real car with two thumb sticks now, so I can't even imagine the immersion I would have felt before if I'd had a wheel.

 

[180bandit]

I agree with what the OP is getting at. Forget about the frame rate and all the technical ********. The problem is that GT5 lacks soul. I seriously don't know how they take so much time to make their cars look like their real life counterparts but then half step on making them sound the same. It's really hard for me to ignore how lame all the cars sound in the GT series. Especially after playing the Forza series. Even tho Forza doesn't look as good as GT5, I'm much happier playing Forza because it feels like you're operating a real car. I honestly think everyone who is a die hard GT fan has never driven a real car, especially a modded one. If they did then they wouldn't be so happy accepting these lame as updates that don't make the game any more enjoyable to play than it was from it's inception.

*Off topic rant lol
I haven't played GT5 since I opened my copy of Forza 4. I honestly thought this update with the upgraded sound would win me back. After installing the update, I chose to drive the M3 since Polyphony did such a horrible job in emulating the sound of the high revving V8. It would be the easiest car to test for the upgrade. I chose Nurb to do my test drive, I was really looking forward to the familiar route with my GTS looking M3. But once again, Kaz & company managed to punch me in the gut AGAIN, taking the wind outta my sail..what a ****ing let down. I can't believe I'm on the verge of trading in my GT5! Forza may not look like the real thing, but it sure feels like it.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

PD does need to find a new method for recording engine noises (though there are some cars that sound pretty good), and while I much prefer FM4's engine sounds, neither is perfect. Some of the best engine sounds I can remember from a modern console game was PGR4. It also had some excellent particle effects on the car in the rain if I remember right.

Some will moan that FM4's cars all sound like V8's (which makes me wonder if they've ever actually heard one), and some will say all GT5's engines sound like vacuums (I repeat my comment). FM4 is louder, and generally more accurate on a car-by-car basis, but is over-synthesized. GT's doesn't sound like the actual engine configuration it should half the time, but they've obviously put more time into studying how sound travels. For an example of that, watch a replay and take note of how the sound changes as cars pass. Mixed with the replay angles, it's still very life-like, even if a ZR1 sounds like a wheezing Chevy Lumina. That sort of breaks the illusion.

I forgot to touch on one of Eunos' points last night, but it's a good one - the relentless pursuit of realism that PD seems intent on could end up painting them into a corner. A lot of the PC sims get criticized for feeling "clinical" on account of being so physics-driven, at the sake of entertainment, like circuits that feel alive, filled with people and life-like scenery. When out hot-lapping in GT5, I'm sometimes hit with the feeling the game is simply too clean, that the conditions are too perfect, and I sometimes wish for some grittiness. It's hard to put into quantitative words, but GT is one of the more sterile-feeling driving games I can think of on consoles when you're out by yourself on a track.

(Obvious exceptions, like running full time/weather change N24 laps, being what they are, of course )

 

[Tenacious D]

I had joked a few times about louder exhaust sounds making your cars faster and handle better, but here comes 180bandit to confirm it.

But condescending remarks aside, I can see that sound is the missing ingredient in making Gran Turismo a total package. Between things like Shift's lurching camera, shaking, rattling and noise filled car interiors, and Forza's roaring exhausts, GT5 does come up several decibels short on that point.

But I have to quibble about it a bit. The over-the-top sounds and effects these two games use are just as bad to me as the racers that hype the sense of speed. Both of these are unrealistic and hurt the other games which strive for realism, like Gran Turismo. Forza 4 is particularly bad in this sense. You have the bot cars kind of muffling along sounding like the proverbial bunch of Hoovers in a replay, when your car comes ROARING into the scene with a V8 engine and racing muffler. The only problem is it's a stock 4 cylinder VW Golf.

This is a sin most of the fans overlook because... hey, it sounds so much cooler. But seriously, T10 has gone to ridiculous extremes with this. I mean, to the point that your stock Golf drowns out the tire sounds needed to help you hear when your car is edging into the lack of grip territory. I know many of the fans who have been with the series since Forza 1 are already dialed in and don't care. But since games like Forza and Shift have moved the goalposts into the unreal territory to one extent or another, it makes GT5 sound that much wimpier. And that's not just unfair to Gran Turismo, but every serious racer which uses street cars, which... well, I guess that's just Gran Turismo, come to think of it...

So, does Kaz just go with the flow and start hyping and distorting all the sounds to be like those other two games? Honestly, I hope not. I'd much rather Gran Turismo stay like this than give into the "sounds on 11" crowd. But what do they do, then?

I think they do what I suggested in my massive post a page or two back. Then there's what avens posted. And I have to say, dude, why did you white it out? It was a good post. I do think the things you mentioned are kind of corollary to the point though. Like, if you take a car in Shift 2 or Forza 4 for a spin and have all the assists on - which is probably what happened in the intro with the Ferrari race in F4 - I don't think it's the assists which hurt the experience. I was juiced after that, but when I got into the game, the new green tint in my glasses faded quickly. Now I understand that as you get into racing seriously, you eventually come aware of those assists. And kind of feeling like your dad has one hand on the wheel to keep you from getting into trouble, you eventually want to kick them out of the car and do it all without any "parental" help. Still, that's a little different from not feeling like your in the car to start with.

I think that falls more into the getting into the Big Boy's Game, serious racing based on FIA, WRC or whatever real world racing leagues, where you can't cut through flat grassy spots or slap on a Stage 3 turbo to win races.

Having said all I have in this thread, I have to yield to both the masses and The Master and what he decides in all this. Clinging to my soap box pedestal and yelling that everyone who disagrees with me is crazy is counterproductive, especially since I don't have a unique grip on the Truth Meter. Kaz is listening to this collective noise from us, the fans, and sifting through it all to see what has merit for upgrades to GT5, as well as how to build GT6. So mostly what I'm doing in threads like this is to say, "Okay, more noise, more volume, more shake, maybe some diver cam lurching. But just don't get too Hollywood with it." At least that's my intent. Edit: and here, I posted practically on Slip's toes there. Two different if slightly in harmony perspectives on this.

To bounce off of his post, the world of GT5 is extremely perfect, like a scene from a Tokyo street in the morning, where everything is perfectly clean, painted and unflawed. It could indeed stand to have some messing up done to it.

So with that, I yield the floor and wish you all a Merry Christmas, and ask you guys what else you think would work.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Shift could sound very excellent if they toned down the racing gearboxes and backfires and such. The samples are, for the most part, very high quality, and there are enough of them to make the audio sound very fluid. The intake and exhaust noise is mixed, but the result for the incar view, at least, is pretty convincing. FM4 has gone totally overboard with it's synthesis.

I'm glad some of you guys are understanding the intent of this thread. PD, give us some more character, please.

 

[Raitziger]

I hope that A-spec events work just like in the forza series, so you gain more XP and credits if you play with as little driving aids as possible. It becomes an incentive to play the game without some aspects removed, but at the same time this doesn't become a requirement to complete it.

Yes,this is one of the things that works on concept level in F4.(in practice It often seems to give too much for little effort for my taste)

Even tho Forza doesn't look as good as GT5, I'm much happier playing Forza because it feels like you're operating a real car. I honestly think everyone who is a die hard GT fan has never driven a real car, especially a modded one.

No. F4 feels more like a boat. Trust me, I have driven cars and boats.(but not modded a car to feel like a boat )

 

[CSLACR]

I had joked a few times about louder exhaust sounds making your cars faster and handle better, but here comes 180bandit to confirm it.

But condescending remarks aside, I can see that sound is the missing ingredient in making Gran Turismo a total package. Between things like Shift's lurching camera, shaking, rattling and noise filled car interiors, and Forza's roaring exhausts, GT5 does come up several decibels short on that point.

But I have to quibble about it a bit. The over-the-top sounds and effects these two games use are just as bad to me as the racers that hype the sense of speed. Both of these are unrealistic and hurt the other games which strive for realism, like Gran Turismo. Forza 4 is particularly bad in this sense. You have the bot cars kind of muffling along sounding like the proverbial bunch of Hoovers in a replay, when your car comes ROARING into the scene with a V8 engine and racing muffler. The only problem is it's a stock 4 cylinder VW Golf.

This is a sin most of the fans overlook because... hey, it sounds so much cooler. But seriously, T10 has gone to ridiculous extremes with this. I mean, to the point that your stock Golf drowns out the tire sounds needed to help you hear when your car is edging into the lack of grip territory. I know many of the fans who have been with the series since Forza 1 are already dialed in and don't care. But since games like Forza and Shift have moved the goalposts into the unreal territory to one extent or another, it makes GT5 sound that much wimpier. And that's not just unfair to Gran Turismo, but every serious racer which uses street cars, which... well, I guess that's just Gran Turismo, come to think of it...

So, does Kaz just go with the flow and start hyping and distorting all the sounds to be like those other two games? Honestly, I hope not. I'd much rather Gran Turismo stay like this than give into the "sounds on 11" crowd. But what do they do, then?

I think they do what I suggested in my massive post a page or two back. Then there's what avens posted. And I have to say, dude, why did you white it out? It was a good post. I do think the things you mentioned are kind of corollary to the point though. Like, if you take a car in Shift 2 or Forza 4 for a spin and have all the assists on - which is probably what happened in the intro with the Ferrari race in F4 - I don't think it's the assists which hurt the experience. I was juiced after that, but when I got into the game, the new green tint in my glasses faded quickly. Now I understand that as you get into racing seriously, you eventually come aware of those assists. And kind of feeling like your dad has one hand on the wheel to keep you from getting into trouble, you eventually want to kick them out of the car and do it all without any "parental" help. Still, that's a little different from not feeling like your in the car to start with.

I think that falls more into the getting into the Big Boy's Game, serious racing based on FIA, WRC or whatever real world racing leagues, where you can't cut through flat grassy spots or slap on a Stage 3 turbo to win races.

Having said all I have in this thread, I have to yield to both the masses and The Master and what he decides in all this. Clinging to my soap box pedestal and yelling that everyone who disagrees with me is crazy is counterproductive, especially since I don't have a unique grip on the Truth Meter. Kaz is listening to this collective noise from us, the fans, and sifting through it all to see what has merit for upgrades to GT5, as well as how to build GT6. So mostly what I'm doing in threads like this is to say, "Okay, more noise, more volume, more shake, maybe some diver cam lurching. But just don't get too Hollywood with it." At least that's my intent. Edit: and here, I posted practically on Slip's toes there. Two different if slightly in harmony perspectives on this.

To bounce off of his post, the world of GT5 is extremely perfect, like a scene from a Tokyo street in the morning, where everything is perfectly clean, painted and unflawed. It could indeed stand to have some messing up done to it.

So with that, I yield the floor and wish you all a Merry Christmas, and ask you guys what else you think would work.

Actually, a LOT of premiums in GT5 have a spot-on sound, the problem is you need to set the audio to at least "small home theater" and have a really good sound system.
I've actually made mine better by switching it to small home theater just through my TV, but now with the new sound "improvements" the thing I'd just gained has been taken from me in less then 2 weeks since I found it.

Hopefully switching back to "living room" makes it sound like "small theater" did before the update.

GT5's main issue with sound itself is the volume of different things. I've driven some extremely loud cars, and it sounded exactly like NFS Shift. You put full racing exhaust on something and it should be screaming at you, tire noise be damned. I never once heard the tires squeal on a Trans Am with full headers, y-pipe, no cats and no muffler. Because you can't, not over 120 decibels.

Also obviously the sound itself of most modified exhausts in GT5 are ridiculous too, need I mention Corvettes...

But even with stock cars that have spot on sounds, like the Viper for example, they're just entirely too quiet in both cockpit and bumper cam. PD recreated the sounds of a very isolated cabin. It's not that's it's "off" exactly, just that because everything in real life is so much louder then most people can play the game, in turn it seems like the tires and wind are "extra loud" in GT5.

So it really depends on your gaming situation. For me, standard TV speakers at a fairly low volume, GT5 sounds bad, very bad. If I had it hooked up to my stereo and turned up it would be very accurate.
But to add to that, realistic sounds are annoying in the comfort of your home, I don't want nor could I stand having something so loud as the wind noise gets in GT5 when the stereo is loud, even if it's 100% perfect to life, I'm a quiet person in general, I listen to TV quiet and usually don't listen to anything loud for extended periods of time. I don't want the entire neighborhood to hear a tornado like rumble coming from the wind noise of my video game I'm playing for hours, I'm too considerate for that.

So basically, NFS nailed it in the head for me, not because it's exactly like real life, but because I can actually have my car sound really cool without this constant gushing wind noise that will drive me and everyone around up a wall.
Edit: BTW-Oh my god I friggin hate NFS Shift. Just the sound please and the tuning, that's it.

 

[Imari]

I think another problem with ambient things like wind noise is that when you're actually driving, your brain sort of edits them out a lot. I drive a fairly old and fairly noisy car, but even at freeway speeds and having to raise my voice to speak to the passenger, I rarely find myself thinking about the wind noise. It just doesn't register.

When it's coming from a TV though, that same editing circuit in my brain never clicks on. So even though the volume of the wind noise may be accurate to what it should be in a real life car, it's having a disproportionate effect because the way it's delivered means that my brain is receiving it at full volume instead of damping it down.

It's entirely possible that I'm the only one this happens to, but I'd be surprised. There's all sorts of noises when I'm driving that I just...ignore, for want of a better word. I have years of experience that they're not important noises, so I only notice when they're wrong or absent.

 

[Sele1981]

Do not even start. 30fps in driving games makes my eyes bleed. It also adds input lag.

Agreed 👍

I cant play F12010 or NFS Shift. It also hurts my eyes to play racing games with 30fps.

If I remember correctly, every GT game had 60fps.

 

[Raitziger]

Sound component sliders FTW or for the GT6!