-
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.
Digital Foundry: Project CARS Performance Analysis (PS4/XB1)
- Thread starter bombshell
- Start date
V-sync is almost always enabled, but there are exceptions - Darksiders 2, for instance, has loads of tearing on Wii U.
Yes, and as I said on the last page, some of their claims turned out to be completely wrong too.
qa_engineer
Member
Oh my bad, I thought this was the face off. I promise I can read guud.
I think the code was still presented as being more up-to-date than it actually was, and that's what SMS were unhappy about. I also got the impression that SMS were more angry at Bandai-Namco for the actual fuck-up than with DF for just analysing what was put in front of them.
It's not like they couldn't lock it to 30 with vsync and also have an unwavering framerate on PS4. Even with 45 cars on the track and rainy weather.
Not very professional of them tbh, surely they must have known the analysis was accurate.
It was presented as "submission quality" and considering there was a day one patch DF did absolutely nothing wrong in representing the facts.
SMSRenderTeam
Neo Member
The post was from Ian Bell / CEO at Slightly Mad.
With regards to the quote, taken from a thread at WMD, Ian has asked us to pass on that he was specifically referencing frame-rate e.g. the team deserved a few congratulatory slaps on the bum for achieving 60FPS in 95% of normal racing conditions!
As for this team member - I am unable to sit down at the moment and will require a good dose of calamine lotion this evening.
Regards
SMSRenderTeam
Obviously updates will be coming, but screen-tearing, touchy framerates and image ghosting are especially disruptive for me for this type of game. This is feeling more like a pass for me, until changes get things up to snuff. When the underlying simulation of something like this is fighting to keep up with what's on screen, I have to step back.
Natureboy99
Banned
Totally different kind if racing game though. PCars is better compared to Gran Turismo or Forza. Driveclub feels more gamey.
Still can't bring myself to get PCars because Driveclub so thoroughly scratches my racing itch. Still just a fantastic racer.
hm... curious. I guess that explains the shadow bug that's still on Xbox ?
Btw, any idea if the game is already using lower res transparencies?
To be honest, I think the SMS team DID do a good job and the results are generally solid...but the fact that DF was called out over the preview build when, in the end, the reported problems were not resolved is pretty unfair. Of course, I also understand that nobody wants to see their game torn apart like that either, but expectations were quite high. I will say that the difference between the final game and the build I played last August on PS4 is truly night and day. It's come much further than I expected.
I do think you guys should add an option to cap the frame-rate at 30fps for those that desire it. It would make rain races much more enjoyable due to the elimination of screen tearing.
Journey
Banned
Interesting...
Don't race in the rain
Maybe what they should do is lock the framerate at 30fps for rainy tracks... Done!
What is this "image ghosting", are we talking about the per-object motion blur?
No, the anti-aliasing on PS4 works by blurring frames together and it causes a ghosting effect.
A lot less tearing in the PS4 version, plus better AA too. The ghosting is as a result of the AA solution. Presumably it might be a bit like InFamous Second Son's.
IronicSonic
Member
That stress test. Not encouraging at all.
My thoughts exactly, which is why it's unfortunate that all of the big racing games so far on both platforms have fairly crap AF (both Forza's and Driveclub).
Not if you're planning on racing exclusively in torrential rain.
With 45 other cars racing with you...
Rain racing with 20 cars seems to stay in the upper 50's most of the time.
But when you do, it will be completely off-putting and you will struggle massively to adjust as you've been used to the near 60 fps in the other races.
bananafactory
Banned
I can deal with some framerate variance but the tearing might be a deal breaker for me.
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
Dat tearing. :'(
I hope dropping the car count helps significantly - Would rather drive against 12 cars with no tearing and constant 60fps then what I've seen in these vids.
I hope dropping the car count helps significantly - Would rather drive against 12 cars with no tearing and constant 60fps then what I've seen in these vids.
Interesting, do you have a link to a source/method used? It seems to offer very good anti-aliasing to stationary objects.
It just looks like per-object motion blur here (ignore the bad tearing on XB1):
But on the stationary objects I see good AA with no ghosting
How does it deal with stationary objects?
My impression is that triple buffering will just result in stuttering, as it would only display complete frames which requires duplicates if it's running below the refresh rate. Without it, you're at least getting a new frame every refresh, even if they're shit ones with a bunch of tearing.
That sounds right to me but I'm basically pulling it out of my ass so someone correct me if I'm wrong.
DirgeExtinction
Member
I wonder if backers can get direct answers from the devs as to why this is so.
TheAdmiester
Member
Interesting, do you have a link to a source/method used? It seems to offer very good anti-aliasing to stationary objects.
It just looks like per-object motion blur here (ignore the bad tearing on XB1):
It's not per object motion blur at all, it's just plain ghosting.
This is per object. You can see that it's a nice smearing blur containted within the entity it's applied to, not a ghosting/frameblending effect. Right now the Xbox version has far nicer motion blur because it doesn't too this, the overall IQ manages to look better even at the lower res, just because it's not trailing everywhere like the screenshot quoted.
ShadowkillXNA
Member
Most modern games are more limited by the gpu than the cpu. And the difference between the ps4 and xbox one cpus is pretty insignificant to begin with. The difference between the two systems gpus is much bigger.
So...how can DF still get things wrong when the devs have explicitly explained how things work?
We have been told that AF on the consoles is the same...and its done on multiple passes...
We have also been told that the "ghosting" is an additional temporal AA method on the PS4, yes DF continues to INSIST that it's a motion blur...and we have been told that the developers actually prefer it...annnndddd we've been told that a slider is going to be added to turn it off at the expenses of more jaggies
We have been told that AF on the consoles is the same...and its done on multiple passes...
We have also been told that the "ghosting" is an additional temporal AA method on the PS4, yes DF continues to INSIST that it's a motion blur...and we have been told that the developers actually prefer it...annnndddd we've been told that a slider is going to be added to turn it off at the expenses of more jaggies
Good Lord the jaggies in the xone version. Really noticeable in the last picture.Interesting, do you have a link to a source/method used? It seems to offer very good anti-aliasing to stationary objects.
It just looks like per-object motion blur here (ignore the bad tearing on XB1):
But on the stationary objects I see good AA with no ghosting
How does it deal with stationary objects?
It's not per object motion blur at all, it's just plain ghosting.
This is per object. You can see that it's a nice smearing blur containted within the entity it's applied to, not a ghosting/frameblending effect. Right now the Xbox version has far nicer motion blur because it doesn't too this, the overall IQ manages to look better even at the lower res, just because it's not trailing everywhere like the screenshot quoted.
There are different types of per-object motion blur. That picture you posted is velocity based pixel post-process.
Seems DF agree
Lalalandia
Member
Are you telling me that you think the AF treatment is the same on both boxes in these screenshots?
The ghosting seen on the PS4 is a hitherto unknown AA implementation as there is literally no other game on the market with ghosting this bad with a temporal AA solution. Calling it post FX AA is unsupportable calling it a blur filter is generous on the part of DF.
Just because a dev says so doesn't mean it's true after all they've already stretched the truth by claiming that the code they did the preliminary analysis on was unrepresentative when it's proved to be basically identical to the Day 1 patch.
megabytecr
Member
The title is pretty ambitious.
I have to congratulate the SMS team and I know they will be further improving the game and adding options to make all of us happy.
What is the worst offender, a lot of cars or rain???
The version to get is obviously PC, if I had a good one.
I have to congratulate the SMS team and I know they will be further improving the game and adding options to make all of us happy.
What is the worst offender, a lot of cars or rain???
The version to get is obviously PC, if I had a good one.
GHG
Member
Only the combination of both really.
drugstore_cowboy
Member
:/
Dunno if I can handle tearing and shit, maybe take a look when there's a 30fps lock.
Dunno if I can handle tearing and shit, maybe take a look when there's a 30fps lock.
PS4 does not seem to have any motion blur. Just a frame blend. There's no blurring along a path. The most logical thing is they are probably offsetting the camera quarter pixel back and forth in alternating frames it is to contribute to anti-aliasing, but it's not doing anything fancy. Notice below the shared "frame" in two consecutive frames.
Digital foundry is simply wrong in their assumptions.
What you see is not per-object motion blur. It is frame blending.
I though Developers said motion blur it's on ps4 but the AA cause some issue with it.PS4 does not seem to have any motion blur. Just a frame blend. There's no blurring along a path. The most logical thing is they are probably offsetting the camera quarter pixel back and forth in alternating frames it is to contribute to anti-aliasing, but it's not doing anything fancy. Notice below the shared frame in two consecutive frames.
Digital foundry is simply wrong in their assumptions.
What you see is not per-object motion blur. It is frame blending.
Lalalandia
Member
Look with your eyes at what hesido has actually illustrated, there is no blur just an after image from the prior frame with a % transparency applied to it. It looks like crap I'm actually scratching my head as to why the effect is included at all.
It's dynamic AF.
Aceofspades
Banned
Looks like PS4 is the clear winner to me with better fps and no tear.
Edit: PS4 fps advantage is huge actually.
Yep there is definitely an AF difference in the previous shots (before the patch) at this point it's difficult to know what is true and what isn't. DF are second-guessing the devs and the devs don't seem to be entirely open about the matter.
The is a shot from the previous DF article:
There is definitely an AF difference
That explains it. Though I think both do have motion blur too since it's in the options you can turn off but that certainly is an artefact.
FonkyByNature
Member
Framerate for me is very important. PS4 looks like the version i will buy + all of the other advantages.