What's with the craptastic shader?

[LaBounti]

It seems no matter how it starts every single thread like this ends up the same.......


...*sigh.....

I've just grown to live with it and just admire the flaws in replays every now and then .......

 

[Fusion]

Wow, this is a whole new low. It's a dynamic lighting system, meaning that the shadow is from a MOVING ray-traced system, which is NOT easy. It's a BIG step in the right direction, and it can only get better with time.

It's not ray traced, still rasterised. Anyhow dynamic shadows are a big step forward, as they were for Doom3 in 2004.

While they're nice an all, when you use them on too big of a scale on a system that can't handle it the resolution of said shadows has to take a big drop, at which point you have to question whether it's worth it that the shadows be dynamic.

Don't get me wrong, I love the effects of the light/shadows changing in the cockpit and think that should remain. But there has to be a slightly less accurate but more visually appealing way to do it that is a good trade off. You can see it in the under car shadows in the replays where they suddenly look a whole lot better from mid range, then up close they go to a sharp edge and low res again. What I'm saying is just make them less accurate (sharp). Maybe the shadows in the replays from mid distance aren't dynamic, I guess that would make sense.

 

[ickis]

Sometimes the shadows look positively awful, but on other occasions, they look great, dont ask me why, because I don't know.

Ive talked about the technical reasons for the shadow quality but forgot to mention why sometimes they look good and other times they don't. One reason is the distance to the camera, the other and this is what people will notice the most " you can take a screenshot and they look like GT5P shadows then another shot on the same track and they look like something very different.It happens When the light and the view camera are nearly parallel, it is called a "dueling frusta," and is a very hard scenario for most shadowing algorithms.

 

[Delta-64-]

Games in general have bad shadows. I'm not a developer, but it must have something to do with the in game engine and the way it cast shadows. Lots of games have pixelated real-time shadows. Another PS3 visual tour de force, Metal Gear Solid 4, had craptastic shadows as well.

 

[brently300]

brently300, please don't triple or even double post, if you have to, edit your first one.


QUOTE]

sorry didnt realize i could do that. i know now

 

[pgzzz]

Yet the headlight covers on my FD look like they were modelled out of Lego.

Really, PD?

What is an FD ?

 

[donavanbadboy]

The problem is that this game renders at 60FPS and it's pushing the PS3's hardware capabilities to the limit. Real time shadows are hard to achieve, especially on the poor old PS3 graphics pipeline.

You don't get decent shadows even on PC without DirectX 11 capable hardware (shader model 5), and the hardware in a PS3 is still around DirectX 9 level (shader model 3).

Basically, we need new hardware.

 

[seanchump]

The graphical leap between GT2 on the PSone to GT3 on the PS2 was absolutely astonishing. That was the first time I saw a video game and thought "this looks real." I expected the same graphical jump from the PS2 to PS3. I hate to say it but this graphical jump isn't going to happen this generation.

So far GT5's shadows, jaggies, and weird pixilation in distant trees almost ruin the game for me. This is by no means a deal breaker as the physics and game play are awesome but back in 1998 I was drawn into Gran Turismo by it's realism. It's hard to appreciate the attention to detail when your car is covered in a jaggy craptastic shadow.

Question: What gives?? PD had 6 years to get it right!
Answer: PS2's used CRT TVs and PS3's use HDTVs.

I've come to the conclusion that the largest factor in diminishing visual quality is in our HDTV's. When I bought component cables for my PS2 and upscaled GT4 to 1080i I noticed strange pixilation in background trees and certain textures. GT4 was a beautiful game but it sucked in HD. The same disappointing effects are found in GT5 in 1080p.

PD rebuilt the Physics Engine for GT5 but not the Graphical Engine. I believe they are using the same graphical engine base on GT3 / GT4 which was optimized for the PS2 and CRT TV's. I bet GT5 is gorgeous on a big CRT! Part of me doesn't want to blame PD because I respect them and everything they have done in the automotive world. They have worked very hard over the last few years downscaling GT4 for the PSP and upscaling GT4 to the PS3.

It's hard to admit but the overall the visual quality in GT5 is not up to my expectations. If the series can make it to GT7 on a PS4 then maybe we'll get back to the "this is real" feeling.

 

[AlexGTV]

Seriously the shadows, and maybe having a grid of only standards, keep this game from scoring as the best graphical showcase of any console to date.

 

[Rocket Punch]

A rant by an Admin. PD has gone too far this time...LOL

 

[GTOne2Three]

They should have just put the exact modeling detail as Forza 3' and did their magic with good lighting(which Forza 3 lacks)..

 

[Rocket Punch]

The graphical leap between GT2 on the PSone to GT3 on the PS2 was absolutely astonishing. That was the first time I saw a video game and thought "this looks real." I expected the same graphical jump from the PS2 to PS3. I hate to say it but this graphical jump isn't going to happen this generation.

So far GT5's shadows, jaggies, and weird pixilation in distant trees almost ruin the game for me. This is by no means a deal breaker as the physics and game play are awesome but back in 1998 I was drawn into Gran Turismo by it's realism. It's hard to appreciate the attention to detail when your car is covered in a jaggy craptastic shadow.

Question: What gives?? PD had 6 years to get it right!
Answer: PS2's used CRT TVs and PS3's use HDTVs.

I've come to the conclusion that the largest factor in diminishing visual quality is in our HDTV's. When I bought component cables for my PS2 and upscaled GT4 to 1080i I noticed strange pixilation in background trees and certain textures. GT4 was a beautiful game but it sucked in HD. The same disappointing effects are found in GT5 in 1080p.

PD rebuilt the Physics Engine for GT5 but not the Graphical Engine. I believe they are using the same graphical engine base on GT3 / GT4 which was optimized for the PS2 and CRT TV's. I bet GT5 is gorgeous on a big CRT! Part of me doesn't want to blame PD because I respect them and everything they have done in the automotive world. They have worked very hard over the last few years downscaling GT4 for the PSP and upscaling GT4 to the PS3.

It's hard to admit but the overall the visual quality in GT5 is not up to my expectations. If the series can make it to GT7 on a PS4 then maybe we'll get back to the "this is real" feeling.

I think someone should start another petition. 👍

 

[IceMan PJN]

Really Duke? This game took so long because there are over 20 tracks with 70 variations, over 1000 cars (which they shouldve taken out premiums and slow cars that wouldve saved time, no wants wants to drive a Honda civic), track creator (not anything special but...), weather development, time changes, physics, graphics...etc., STOP COMPLAINING

Really dude, you're pretending that these things were a massive effort? You know "over 20 tracks" is fewer than were in Forza 3, and all of Forza 3's were either created during the mere two years after Forza 2 or (in the case of older courses) at least updated since FM2 (unlike GT5 which didn't really do anything to the old courses). They didn't create over 1000 cars for GT5 either, but rather only 221, while the other 810 were recycled from older iterations of the game. The track creator only took them like an afternoon to add to the game, the weather is some of the crudest in recent gaming history, time changes have been basic since at least N64, et cetera.

It took 2.5 times longer to do half of what Turn 10 did in just two years, since Turn 10 produced more tracks (and upgraded all old track models to varying degrees), created over 400 premium cars (that doesn't count DLC that followed) versus just 221 for GT5, and created a game that generally looks a bit better. There is no such thing as a Standard car in FM3, as all of them are up to GT5/FM3 standards complete with full cockpits for all 400+.

Here, let me show you the difference. These are both from Laguna Seca, one from each game.

FM3:

GT5:

FM3:

GT5:

It's fine to love GT5. I do. That doesn't mean it's okay to defend shortcomings and flaws and pretend that the game is sheer perfection. We have to be honest with ourselves, and FM3/Turn 10 also deserves some due credit. Has Turn 10 set the bar too high?

 

[hyyperactive]

- online is buggy. Crashes a lot. Also somewhat primitive.
- cockpit view is way too shaky
- no cockpit view for all cars
- hard to hear my car when using bonnet camera.
- bonnet camera very low in some cars and very high on others
- not enough tracks
- not one single new game element
- leveling system is bad in everyway
- ucd isn't good system. But the online dealer shop fixes it.
- no car classes or any kind of system to match cars other than very rigid and exploitable weight/hp limits
- not enough in game events. Way too few by a longshot.
- missing the game
- ai is so so slow
- menus are awkward. looks nice but not fun to use.



What I don't mind really:
- shadows (not too big deal imho)
- car detail on standard cars (looks is not so important. Much better to have those cars in low fidelity than not at all)

I think after 5 years of development they released the game far too early.

 

[TakeshiSkunk]

Remove Kaz from the development team? Are you crazy? No one can do it better. How would you like it if Dan Greenwalt took over?

Well since the physics are already pretty well worked out, I'd *love it* if he took over. He'd communicate with fans, develop the online aspect, outsource modeling when needed, and generally have us a new game to buy by this time next year. He'd probably call it GT5v2.0 to be mean, but that's just how he is.

If by communicate with fans you mean publicly berate them in forums and ban anyone that has any sort of legitemate complaint, no matter how benignly stated, about the game, then yes he'd be outstanding at communicating with fans.

If by develop the online aspect you mean give us a livery editor and then an online infrastructure that makes the game impossible to play in any vaguely competitive or interesting manner outside of pre-organized private matches with people you already know, then yes he would give us a revolutionary online component.

He'd also give us a soulless husk of a game that has the bare bones aesthetic of a PC sim without even a fraction of the depth or quality, but that's getting more into opinions and personal preferences.

 

[NotReallyKnown]

Really dude, you're pretending that these things were a massive effort? You know "over 20 tracks" is fewer than were in Forza 3, and all of Forza 3's were either created during the mere two years after Forza 2 or (in the case of older courses) at least updated since FM2 (unlike GT5 which didn't really do anything to the old courses). They didn't create over 1000 cars for GT5 either, but rather only 221, while the other 810 were recycled from older iterations of the game. The track creator only took them like an afternoon to add to the game, the weather is some of the crudest in recent gaming history, time changes have been basic since at least N64, et cetera.

It took 2.5 times longer to do half of what Turn 10 did in just two years, since Turn 10 produced more tracks (and upgraded all old track models to varying degrees), created over 400 premium cars (that doesn't count DLC that followed) versus just 221 for GT5, and created a game that generally looks a bit better. There is no such thing as a Standard car in FM3, as all of them are up to GT5/FM3 standards complete with full cockpits for all 400+.

Here, let me show you the difference. These are both from Laguna Seca, one from each game.

FM3:

GT5:

FM3:

GT5:

It's fine to love GT5. I do. That doesn't mean it's okay to defend shortcomings and flaws and pretend that the game is sheer perfection. We have to be honest with ourselves, and FM3/Turn 10 also deserves some due credit. Has Turn 10 set the bar too high?

I love how you decide to Use a standard model car for Gran Turismo's comparison shots. Why not put up more fair comparison photos of a premium model instead?

 

[hyyperactive]

I love how you decide to Use a standard model car for Gran Turismo's comparison shots. Why not put up more fair comparison photos of a premium model instead?

Did you even read what he wrote?

 

[NotReallyKnown]

Did you even read what he wrote?

Yeah, I did. I must have misread it then because I didn't catch where he said "let me show you a standard model vs Forza.

 

[NOS Waster]

The problem is that this game renders at 60FPS and it's pushing the PS3's hardware capabilities to the limit. Real time shadows are hard to achieve, especially on the poor old PS3 graphics pipeline.

You don't get decent shadows even on PC without DirectX 11 capable hardware (shader model 5), and the hardware in a PS3 is still around DirectX 9 level (shader model 3).

Basically, we need new hardware.

iRacing would like to have a word with you. iRacing is still using DX9 and gets amazing shadows that trounce a LOT of DX10 and DX11 games. Nobody really tried to squeeze everything they could out of DX9 so they moved on.
rFactor 2's preview shots seem to have amazing shadows and that ALSO will only use DX9.

 

[mechwarrior]

It's funny watching people argue when they have no clue what they're talking about.

 

[Arklight]

Sacrifices to make the game run at 60 fps...

...and yet the game does not run at a solid 60 fps. lol

Games in general have bad shadows. I'm not a developer, but it must have something to do with the in game engine and the way it cast shadows. Lots of games have pixelated real-time shadows. Another PS3 visual tour de force, Metal Gear Solid 4, had craptastic shadows as well.

It's because consoles do not have enough power to run high-res. shadow maps AND everything else that people want. If people want high-resolution shadow maps, high levels of FSAA, high resolution textures, time-of-day, dynamic weather, 16, 24, etc.. players online, and a solid 60 fps, than they should get into PC gaming. That's why I play PC titles a lot more than console games.

On a side note, before somebody mentions consoles being "HD", "HD" is actually quite average for a PC resolution.

I wish GT5 was a PC title so I could crank 32xFSAA at 2560x1600.

 

[reaperman]

If by communicate with fans you mean...

If by develop the online aspect you mean...

Obviously I didn't mean what you thought, or my post would have not made much sense.

Maybe forcing Kaz to work under new management isn't the best of all solutions, but I do believe there does need to be a 'solution' in some form to the issue of how GT5 was managed. What's a better way? Outsourcing? Rapid growth and broader leadership hierarchy?

Perhaps another way to go about it would be to make Gran Turismo an A-team/B-team kind of franchise. Where either two studios swap off with commercial releases (as medal of honor does), or else rely on the b-team for after sale and DLC support. Both studios could have a modelling department as they'd share resources that way.

SCE Studio Liverpool makes sense to me. They have a long history of great games, including racing titles, and their geographical location might give them access to cars a Tokyo studio might have trouble finding without airfare. Who knows they might have picked up a few useful tricks over the decades that might be nice in a GT game.

I really don't want GT6 to take half a decade and come out bodged together like GT5 did.

 

[GTOne2Three]

I love how you decide to Use a standard model car for Gran Turismo's comparison shots. Why not put up more fair comparison photos of a premium model instead?

We could have had 1000 Forza3 quality models touched up with great lighting (which is what PD is good at considering GT3 and 4 were able to compete with Forza for XBox). Forza lacks Gt's lighting engine which makes the cars on GT look more realistic. They wasted time enhancing crap 95% of players will never see or care about.

 

[Zer0]

Really dude, you're pretending that these things were a massive effort? You know "over 20 tracks" is fewer than were in Forza 3, and all of Forza 3's were either created during the mere two years after Forza 2 or (in the case of older courses) at least updated since FM2 (unlike GT5 which didn't really do anything to the old courses). They didn't create over 1000 cars for GT5 either, but rather only 221, while the other 810 were recycled from older iterations of the game. The track creator only took them like an afternoon to add to the game, the weather is some of the crudest in recent gaming history, time changes have been basic since at least N64, et cetera.

It took 2.5 times longer to do half of what Turn 10 did in just two years, since Turn 10 produced more tracks (and upgraded all old track models to varying degrees), created over 400 premium cars (that doesn't count DLC that followed) versus just 221 for GT5, and created a game that generally looks a bit better. There is no such thing as a Standard car in FM3, as all of them are up to GT5/FM3 standards complete with full cockpits for all 400+.

Here, let me show you the difference. These are both from Laguna Seca, one from each game.

FM3:
photomode

GT5:
standard

FM3:
photomode

GT5:
standard

It's fine to love GT5. I do. That doesn't mean it's okay to defend shortcomings and flaws and pretend that the game is sheer perfection. We have to be honest with ourselves, and FM3/Turn 10 also deserves some due credit. Has Turn 10 set the bar too high?

Almost half of the in-game content of Forza 3 is recicled from Forza 2 with no or little changes and they outsourced most of the game modeling having a total of more than the double of people working than Polyphony had with GT5.

http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=24881189&postcount=426

http://i52.tinypic.com/wipzbk.jpg

http://www.gamereactor.se/artiklar/19586/Grafikduell:+Forza+2+vs+Forza+3/

The track creator in one afternoon and the basic features since N64 are not present in Forza so think about how lazy were in T10 by your standards.

Forza looks a bit better?.. compare Nurburgring 24h with day/night cycle, weather and 16 premium cars at 1080p to Forza Nurburgring ingame graphics. Car details are not even close and aside of the car swaping even the other cars interiors become blacked. Cockpit views are not comparable with no rear or side views modeled and no textures, the cars has no moving aero parts plus the overall less realistic lighting. The smoke effects are almost non existant, particles effects are poor, no backfire, no light beams, etc..

What bar you mean? photomode graphics?

 

[hyyperactive]

Regarding the development of gt5 and kaz... I think the series needs some new ideas. In a way forza3 is kind of what I expected from gt5. Enhancing the major parts of the gt games. Tuning, huge car selection, earning money and buying new cars.

While forza has expanded on those ideas gt5 still does it 99% the same as in gt1 over 10 years ago. Start sunday cup, do some races and do the same races you have already done in the last 4 installations of the game.

That something new doesn't need to be something extreme like the b-spec but surely pd could have come up with something to deepen the gt experience instead of adding better graphics and physics to gt4 and taking some bits away?

I could easily imagine various ways to spice up the a-spec with prize cars leading to new branches of one make championships. Earning those special cars from special events and having more events and series with strict entry requirements. I'm sure everyone has lots of ideas what could have been. It's almost absurd why and how kaz was able to not implement any of those...

 

[JonnyBigBoss]

People find anything to complain about. The shaders are awesome, it's the shadows. The game is so demanding because of the level of detail that there is a noticeable lack of anti-aliasing.

I'll take jagged shadows over a fake simulation like Forza.

 

[Abriael]

What I'm saying here is that they wasted time on some completely irrelevant things and completely blew off other things that are quite important.

And of course you have the competence to decide what is irrelevant and what is important.

Interestint statement here.

By the way, I disagree with every single line of your posts.

I'll take jagged shadows over a fake simulation like Forza.

Couldn't agree more.

And I'll take 200some premium cars that blow every single forza model out of the water and to the moon over the 400some forza models that look all rather mediocre.

 

[hyyperactive]

Yeah because the looks of the game is everything. (sarcasm)

Omg shiny car. This must be super realistic (still sarcasm this line here).

Forza is no more "fake" than gt5. At times it is almost absurd what kind of statements people are ready to make to feel better about the game they bought compared "to the other" game on the market.

Surely you guys need to accept that the jaggy shadows look poor no matter what?

 

[Abriael]

Forza is no more "fake" than gt5. At times it is almost absurd what kind of statements people are ready to make to feel better about the game they bought compared "to the other" game on the market.

The difference is that in GT5 all the cars behave approximately how they do in real life (which makes it a simulation or at least very near to one), in Forza 3 the handling of the two major racing and supercar drivetrains (RWD and Midship) simply have nothing to do with their real life counterpart (which isn't exactly a marginal flaw in a racing sim).

I'm still laughing about the Forza 3 RWD online ghetto, since them dumbing down the hardships of the drivetrain to make it more accessible to arcade gamers ended up flattening even it's strong points, turning every RWD car in the game into an uncompetitive piece of crap that will eat dust from every 4wd and even from FWD cars (which is utterly laughable to anyone that has any experience with real cars).

I bought both games. I played the hell out of Forza 3 (and forza 2 and 1 before), I have no need to use it to "feel better", but this doesn't mean that I can't have a chuckle at the ones that define it an actual simulator. It's a very nice game. Keyword -> "game".

Almost half of the in-game content of Forza 3 is recicled from Forza 2 with no or little changes and they outsourced most of the game modeling having a total of more than the double of people working than Polyphony had with GT5.

http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=24881189&postcount=426

http://i52.tinypic.com/wipzbk.jpg

http://www.gamereactor.se/artiklar/19586/Grafikduell:+Forza+2+vs+Forza+3/

The track creator in one afternoon and the basic features since N64 are not present in Forza so think about how lazy were in T10 by your standards.

Forza looks a bit better?.. compare Nurburgring 24h with day/night cycle, weather and 16 premium cars at 1080p to Forza Nurburgring ingame graphics. Car details are not even close and aside of the car swaping even the other cars interiors become blacked. Cockpit views are not comparable with no rear or side views modeled and no textures, the cars has no moving aero parts plus the overall less realistic lighting. The smoke effects are almost non existant, particles effects are poor, no backfire, no light beams, etc..

What bar you mean? photomode graphics?

This.

 

[Pierced Lead]

Oh dear, once again that other game has been dragged into a discussion...


And there are still alot of flaws in the physics engine of GT5, just so you people know...