Forza offers higher car detail AND higher car count than both DC/PC, while also being on a shorter dev cycle. T10/PG have released 4 full titles since Evo's last major project which is MS: Apocalypse.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Next-gen Racing Graphics Face-off | (Next-gen means current-gen)
- Thread starter Gestault
- Start date
Forza offers higher car detail AND higher car count than both DC/PC, while also being on a shorter dev cycle. T10/PG have released 4 full titles since Evo's last major project which is MS: Apocalypse.
icecold1983
Member
autovista mode is about as irrelevant as it gets. what does the rear view mirror feed being less detailed have to do with the car model? both driveclub and pcars use several times as many polys per car than forza.
Can't agree there, mate, the hands look virtually the same honestly, and the rear view mirror is definitely better in forza.
It wasn't cheap for GT5/6 to feature those advanced particle effects either. You'd hope that going into a new generation you don't lose features that was available in the one prior.
Auto-Reply
Member
Absolutely! You can have the most detailed and cleanest graphics of all time and judge them based on a stand still picture. Once they start moving on your display though that ain't worth shit if the framerate is not high enough to retain the quality in motion. Every comparison that is only based on pictures is flawed!
Any proof of that? The rear view mirror is part of the model, and if it has visible edges that means not enough polygons were used to model it. If the model is smooth then it has more polygons, it's simple logic.
1. Can you show proof?
2. Again, the output speed is out of discussion here. This is about graphics as a whole, not best graphics in less time.
Several times?? Are you referring to the player car? In any case, do you have a link or article that indicates this?
Forzavista with fully featured cockpits and engine compartments with great detail vs car models that don't have modelled engines. The first one wins. Neither DC nor PCars has modelled engines as far as I know.
By blurred , do you mean "not jagged as fuck"? Because that's the main difference I'm seeing between the edges of the two.
I don't think autovista is irrelevant when referring to the car models. It doesn't say a whole lot about the game's graphics overall, but in terms of the modelling, it's the baseline for what the in-game models will be derived of.
It's pretty much ensuring we don't end up with a Gran Turismo "classic cars" situation as time goes on. You remarked about how it's not impressive that Turn 10 are equalling Polyphony from last-gen... the autovista models show that they're way past equalling them.
PC has modelled engines. But you can only see them once you crash and the bonet flies :-D Which leads me to damage modelling (no contest here, Wreckfest wins by a country mile lol).
Anyway, tell me if I'm wrong, you're comparing race models with garage models here, aren't you?
We're are comparing general car models, the best that games have on offer. For gameplay all games scale down their models, including PCars and DC.
Shyakugaun
Banned
Lol this guy, you might want to step back into reality.
drugstore_cowboy
Member
Lack of materials hurt F4 more than anything.
Shyakugaun
Banned
Just for fun comparing F40 in GT5, FM4/5.
Can you post a in-game model comparison now too?
Okay, then explain why you compare garage model against race model instead of garage vs. garage. pCARS has around 300K polys for the garage model.
I don't really understand the need of some people to use every trick to make their game of choice prevail.
Can we talk about car count? That's graphics too. Project CARS supports 64 cars per race. How many cars support other games?
drugstore_cowboy
Member
None of the games provide tools for it and I don't have a capture card. Besides, we were comparing car modelling, not who uses a higher LOD during racing.
icecold1983
Member
autovista uses a million polys per car. yeah its pretty irrelevant. i thought you meant the track being rendered in the rearview mirror.
Confirmed on PC
On consoles the latest official demo at EGX supported 24, I think. But inside tests tell they could well double that. The game still needs to go through the latest optimization stages to set the final number.
I don't own a PS4 and PCars, so maybe those who do can provide it. And just above I've compared garage models.
We certainly should be able to talk about car count. Anyone claiming that 64 cars vs something like 16 isn't having a graphical effect, is being extremely selective imo.. I said earlier, that if something like Dead Rising was pushing 5 zombies on average, the graphics would be considered very differently from how they are today.
Direct captures from last page confirmed that FH2 has better IQ and AA solution than DC.
Then don't say it's better. Show what you've got and wait for others to add to the conversation instead of saying it's the best because Autovista vs. gameplay.
Still, I don't see how it is relevant how Forzavista models look. That's like using Mario's face from Super Mario 64 startup to talk about the quality of face models in that game. If you can't see it's apples to oranges, then I guess there's nothing to discuss here.
The problem is that 64 AIs is more CPU intensive than GPU, from what I've read 64 AIs in race bring even the most powerful PCs to their knees. And seeing how both Xbone/PS4 have an incredibly weak CPU I just can't see 64 AI's happening on consoles. Online might be possible.
Screens from page 2 of this thread.
Forza 5:
DC:
PCars:
Still no seeing a huge difference between all three. They're all using max LOD during gameplay for cockpit view.
First *driving* game, then.
Had Driveclub for a few days, and it's weird.
Playing in cockpit view, and the visuals vary from looking like early PS3 game, to fleeting moments of genuine photorealism. The geometry and textures in general look poor with flat lighting (which might last half a race), but when the sun comes out, or is low and stark, the game looks incredible.
Playing in cockpit view, and the visuals vary from looking like early PS3 game, to fleeting moments of genuine photorealism. The geometry and textures in general look poor with flat lighting (which might last half a race), but when the sun comes out, or is low and stark, the game looks incredible.
I didn't say anything about AI. 64 cars still need to be drawn. Forza Motorsport already used higher detail cars for time trials than for online races, so it's obviously a graphical factor.
They are both intensive on CPU and GPU. The CPU needs to handle their physics (usually simplified physics, I think Asetto Corsa has the same physics for AI and the player, but I'm not sure). But they also add polys, textures , particles and what not to the mix. For reference, in PC, when you set particle density to Ultra, every car leaves water trails, not only the 8 closets to you, like other settings do.
Check the trail particles here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJvC_ipfKfw
Keep in mind they're still working on them and fixing some issues. But you get the general idea of how they look.
Leaving aside that PC shot looks quite old, I see a clear difference in the texture quality there. DC and FH look quite less defined.
Shyakugaun
Banned
I agree, it will be interesting to see how many cars on track PC manages to squeeze on consoles and how the framerate will behave. In gran turismo 5/6 in many cases the game slowed down when you moved closer to AI cars and high detail assets loaded in. In Forza however framerate is king and the game is tuned in such a way that it never drops frames during normal gameplay, so I imagine they use somewhat less detailed CPU cars than most other racers in order to achieve absolutely rock solid framerate. Again, it will be interesting how optimized PCars turns out on consoles.
Krisprolls
Banned
As it should since DC does a lot more things and looks a lot more realistic. DC IQ looks fine to me when in motion by the way. What is sure is it's the best looking racer by a mile.
Red Chocobo
Banned
As far as detail goes, most current-gen racers are pretty much on par now.
I think the big difference this gen will be lighting engines.
I really hope Forza Motorsport 6 has an all new lighting engine. I feel that the series' great detail has always been let down by poor, flat lighting. If they get it right next time, I think they would have the best looking racer. Especially as far as consistency goes.
I think the big difference this gen will be lighting engines.
I really hope Forza Motorsport 6 has an all new lighting engine. I feel that the series' great detail has always been let down by poor, flat lighting. If they get it right next time, I think they would have the best looking racer. Especially as far as consistency goes.
Caayn
Member
Not to be that person but I don't think that those DC and PC shots are representative of the games in their current state.
Comparing a moving shot to a still shot is not a great way to compare
Also the GT shot suffers from screen tearing.Edit: Here's a high quality capture of the F40 in Forza 5 and Forza Horizon 2
It's long story with F40 model and Forza franchise dating back to the first one. The model has been wildly inaccurate in the past, for Forza 5 they remade the front and cockpit, but for some reason left out the back end. I really don't like how it looks, hopefully they fix it for FM6.
icecold1983
Member
It comes down to personal preference really. To me all racers apart from GT look somewhat stylized with their graphic style, even though many people say that DC looks realistic, but I'm not convinced, I can always tell it's a game, for some GT5/6 shots I had to actually double take whether it's a game or reality. Hasn't happened with any other game including DC/PC/FM/FH and so on.
Let's not come down to personal insults, shall we?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Screens from page 2 of this thread.
Forza 5:
DC:
PCars:
Still no seeing a huge difference between all three. They're all using max LOD during gameplay for cockpit view.
There's a huge difference OUTSIDE the cockpit with DC and the rest.
But actual car detail is on a similar level.
I'm not so convinced that DC does much more that FH2, both have dynamic ToD, Forza has to handle the ability to go anywhere in the world and constantly stream assets, while DC is set within very confined tracks. Also don't forget that FH2 runs much more sophisticated physics engine than DC, features same 12 cars on track but also has traffic, I'm also not sure if Drivatar AI required more CPU resources than normal AI, also the car liveries take a chunk of RAM, as well as rewind feature which I guess requires the game to basically record the last few minutes of gameplay and have the state of the world and all entities stored somewhere in the memory. Draw distances are remarkable in both games but again Forza has to handle much wider drivable areas. There are many nuances when it comes to games programming.
Dictator93
Member
Your creens beyond the FM5 one are very low quality. Very low quality.
It's not an entirely fair comparison as both FM5 and PCars run at double the framerate, and FM5 was a launch title. There is really no direct competitor for DC, I don't recall having any 30 fps fictional track racers on currentgen.
I know and they're not even mine, I took them from this very thread. But it allows general discussion on how detailed the car models are, which was the original argument.
About the part in bold, you should really watch some of the videos Gamersysde did about DC, because the point-to-point tracks really have huge environments modelled.
At least as big as what you can see in FH2.
And DC is also streaming assets.
How could it load all of them in 10-15 seconds?
I agree that from the promo-pack material it looked like the best racer ever. But when actually played out of developer hands it reveals a surprising amount of flaws, almost off-putting in places, in comparison to the bar that the pr department set. Not blaming the developer that much for that though, they did a great job with the visuals in the big picture (especially their lighting and volumetric implementation is fine work).
Driveclub's engine is more advanced. I'm not saying that as a mark against FH2, but it's just the reality of Playground using Forza 5's engine as a base, which suffered a bit due to being a 1080p/60fps launch title.
It's a few things like:
- Vegetation system
- Lighting/shader quality. FH2 is a big step above F5 but I suspect DC is a bit more modern in this regard.
- Ambient occlusion (under trees, for example. Reason why FH2 looks odd during bright overcast conditions)
- Global illumination
- Screen space reflection (FH2's wet roads have to use dynamic cubemaps which are expensive and limited)
I'm not convinced DC's models are any better than anyone else's though.