Support NeoGAF

[Unknown?]

Some shadows on Forza are so bad

The paint looks so bad too!

 

[Insane Metal]

Xbox Series X Native 4k 60fps Mode vs GT7 PS5 quality mode. Same car with same factory paint color Bleu Alpine.
GT7 with the better environment details: higher density grass, tree LOD draw distance, better textures, better shadow resolution, npc crowds cast shadows, lighting, car paint materials and environment material properties are still unmatched. I thought the replays in Forza with the muddy 2d trees were bugged in those videos but that's how the distant trees look in gameplay.

GT7 replay capture

Forza photomode trying to get the same angle and lighting condition

That's a huge difference if favor of GT7. And that's probably the first XSX x PS5 comparison we see.

So much for built from the ground up. Car looks like plastic. What about that tree shadow in the 5th screen? Holy fuck

Also, 'trees look much better in Forza':

Same spot, same time of day, both gameplay, from the screens above. Oof.

 

[sendit]

This comparison stands out, outside of the generational gap between the car models in favor of GT7:

FM 2023
- Reduced fence detail
- Lack of shadow casting from the fence on to the road, opposite side, and car
- Aggressive LOD
- Blurry road texture
- Blurry reflection of side mirrors on car

+ More outside track objects at reduced quality

 

[Insane Metal]

This comparison stands out, outside of the generational gap between the car models in favor of GT7:

FM 2023
- Reduced fence detail
- Lack of shadow casting from the fence on to the road, opposite side, and car
- Aggressive LOD
- Blurry road texture
- Blurry reflection of side mirrors on car

+ More outside track objects at reduced quality

Asset quality is horrid, JFC

 

[SlimySnake]

Xbox Series X Native 4k 60fps Mode vs GT7 PS5 quality mode. Same car with same factory paint color Bleu Alpine.
GT7 with the better environment details: higher density grass, tree LOD draw distance, better textures, better shadow resolution, npc crowds cast shadows, lighting, car paint materials and environment material properties are still unmatched. I thought the replays in Forza with the muddy 2d trees were bugged in those videos but that's how the distant trees look in gameplay.

GT7 replay capture


Forza photomode trying to get the same angle and lighting condition

Not a good look for Forza here.

That's a huge difference if favor of GT7. And that's probably the first XSX x PS5 comparison we see.

So much for built from the ground up. Car looks like plastic. What about that tree shadow in the 5th screen? Holy fuck

Also, 'trees look much better in Forza':

Same spot, same time of day, both gameplay, from the screens above. Oof.

To be fair, they both look like shit lmao. they both look ok from afar.

 

[Insane Metal]

Not a good look for Forza here.

Yet you play Forza but not GT.

 

[SlimySnake]

Yet you play Forza but not GT.

$10 vs $70

Sony shouldve put GT7 on PS+ extra by now.

 

[Insane Metal]

$10 vs $70

Sony shouldve put GT7 on PS+ extra by now.

Gotta pay for the goodness my man

 

[Darsxx82]

That's a huge difference if favor of GT7. And that's probably the first XSX x PS5 comparison we see.

So much for built from the ground up. Car looks like plastic. What about that tree shadow in the 5th screen? Holy fuck

Also, 'trees look much better in Forza':

Same spot, same time of day, both gameplay, from the screens above. Oof.

What you see there is the best circuit in Gt7 (recently added) compared to one of the least accomplished in FM. And even so you can also make a comparison of it by making FM look better.

For a game with a dynamic time cycle and dynamic weather conditions, you have infinite lighting options where some could be more successful than others. The car paint in FM is using the default "matte". A more faithful comparison would be to change to one with shine.
The trees, no matter how much some Of you insist, are a point in Forza's favor, especially when the lighting variations are going to have an influence on the appearance of the vegetation. The reflections in this comparasion are from performance mode without RT or RTAO....

The fact is that you have a comparison from Turk1993 in the other thread that is much more faithful, 1:1 and from other circuits and, however, the conclusions are only made in an absolute way based on those where it is FM that would come out badly

 

[Insane Metal]

What you see there is the best circuit in Gt7 (recently added) compared to one of the least accomplished in FM. And even so you can also make a comparison of it by making FM look better.

For a game with a dynamic time cycle and dynamic weather conditions, you have infinite lighting options where some could be more successful than others. The car paint in FM is using the default "matte". A more faithful comparison would be to change to one with shine.
The trees, no matter how much some Of you insist, are a point in Forza's favor, especially when the lighting variations are going to have an influence on the appearance of the vegetation. The reflections in this comparasion are from performance mode without RT or RTAO....

The fact is that you have a comparison from Turk1993 in the other thread that is much more faithful, 1:1 and from other circuits and, however, the conclusions are only made in an absolute way based on those where it is FM that would come out badly

Turk makes comparisons from PC version, not console version. Seeing as some of the details in the console version are equivalent to low or even lower than low on PC I don't know how much sense these comparisons make. The one above is console versus console. And the details like trees in the background and ground detail probably won't change from one track to the other.

 

[sendit]

What you see there is the best circuit in Gt7 (recently added) compared to one of the least accomplished in FM. And even so you can also make a comparison of it by making FM look better.

For a game with a dynamic time cycle and dynamic weather conditions, you have infinite lighting options where some could be more successful than others. The car paint in FM is using the default "matte". A more faithful comparison would be to change to one with shine.
The trees, no matter how much some Of you insist, are a point in Forza's favor, especially when the lighting variations are going to have an influence on the appearance of the vegetation. The reflections in this comparasion are from performance mode without RT or RTAO....

The fact is that you have a comparison from Turk1993 in the other thread that is much more faithful, 1:1 and from other circuits and, however, the conclusions are only made in an absolute way based on those where it is FM that would come out badly

Agreed. Turk's comparison is a 1:1 and a lot more faithful. Because a PC w/4090 === PS5.

 

[SkyHighTrees]

What you see there is the best circuit in Gt7 (recently added) compared to one of the least accomplished in FM. And even so you can also make a comparison of it by making FM look better.

For a game with a dynamic time cycle and dynamic weather conditions, you have infinite lighting options where some could be more successful than others. The car paint in FM is using the default "matte". A more faithful comparison would be to change to one with shine.
The trees, no matter how much some Of you insist, are a point in Forza's favor, especially when the lighting variations are going to have an influence on the appearance of the vegetation. The reflections in this comparasion are from performance mode without RT or RTAO....

The fact is that you have a comparison from Turk1993 in the other thread that is much more faithful, 1:1 and from other circuits and, however, the conclusions are only made in an absolute way based on those where it is FM that would come out badly

What I like about this comment, is that when they are comparing Forza vs GT using the oldest and poorest track model in GT, it's fine to show how much better Forza looks.

When people compare Watkins Glen it's not fair?

Furthermore, do you really think the shadows will change from performance mode to performance RT? Or the track assets? The Lod?

I hate damage control

 

[Insane Metal]

B benzy can you make a more faithful comparison? Like, taking the worst looking track in GT and compare against the best looking track in Forza? j/k

But maybe you can make more of these in another track?

 

[Three]

Xbox Series X Native 4k 60fps Mode vs GT7 PS5 quality mode. Same car with same factory paint color Bleu Alpine.
GT7 with the better environment details: higher density grass, tree LOD draw distance, better textures, better shadow resolution, npc crowds cast shadows, lighting, car paint materials and environment material properties are still unmatched. I thought the replays in Forza with the muddy 2d trees were bugged in those videos but that's how the distant trees look in gameplay.

Why do the brake point marker positions look so different in this comparison or is it just my eyes deceiving me with a different FOV in the two games?

Could it be why I've seen some sim racers complain about the tracks not feeling right in Forza?

 

[Darsxx82]

Turk makes comparisons from PC version, not console version. Seeing as some of the details in the console version are equivalent to low or even lower than low on PC I don't know how much sense these comparisons make. The one above is console versus console. And the details like trees in the background and ground detail probably won't change from one track to the other.

Except for less sharp texturing and AF, the rest of the settings show differences that are generally only evident at 400% zoom. You are kidding yourself if you think the definition is equivalent to what you see.

Then, the most important sections and especially those you have mentioned are equivalent to what you see on PC to the maximum (lighting, car model, lods, vegetation, trees, weather effects, volumetric lighting...).

It's funny that it seems inconsistent to compare with FM on PC, but in that comparison it is compared with FM performance mode

What I like about this comment, is that when they are comparing Forza vs GT using the oldest and poorest track model in GT, it's fine to show how much better Forza looks.

When people compare Watkins Glen it's not fair?

There is no need to distort or invent on your part about my words.... I have not said that it is valid in some cases and not in others, I have said that I am surprised that evaluations are only made at all when the comparison leaves in bad place to FM.
That is to say, some of you want to convey the idea that GT7 vs FM at the Watkins circuit in Tod at noon is what both games are and that is far from reality.

Furthermore, do you really think the shadows will change from performance mode to performance RT?

Yes, the shadows are better quallity in performace RT. Also AO, texturas, distancie objects los... We have seen it in several comparisons but cleary some of you not.

Or the track assets? The Lod?

And you want to make believe that the detail of the circuits is the same in all the GT7 circuits?

I hate damage control

Saying what you don't want to hear is not damage control.
But Ok, you trying to make us believe that FM has no merit compared to GT7 is pure honesty, Of course.

 

[Darsxx82]

Agreed. Turk's comparison is a 1:1 and a lot more faithful. Because a PC w/4090 === PS5.

I repeat, you are deceiving yourself if you want to think that there is a radical difference between PC and XSX. It's the complete opposite beyond extra AF and slightly texture sharpness.

Low vs Ultra in most settings is very difficult to distinguish except at 400% zoom. The fact is that most of the most important features mentioned in the comparison are 1:1 console vs PC (lighting, circuit detail, circuit assets, aymospheric effects, car model, lods...).



The funny thing is that in that comparison the performance mode is used in XSX and it doesn't seem like that is a problem however

 

[SlimySnake]

B benzy do you have any cool gt7 or forza gifs? Do you have a channel or account where i can watch your gifs. Big fan.

 

[Turk1993]

What I like about this comment, is that when they are comparing Forza vs GT using the oldest and poorest track model in GT, it's fine to show how much better Forza looks.

When people compare Watkins Glen it's not fair?

We should compare old and new to see how they hold up on different tracks. Forza is out later so it should look better no mather what. Watkins glen and Road Atlanta are the best looking real tracks in GT7, and there is a reason for that.

Furthermore, do you really think the shadows will change from performance mode to performance RT? Or the track assets? The Lod?

I hate damage control

Actually there is, the shadows, textures, draw distance, fences, reflections, grass, ao and texture filtering is better in RT performance mode. And the visual mode goes even further by adding trees, foliage, grass, better iq and longer draw. distances.

 

[SkyHighTrees]

I said that Turk1993 made a comparison using max PC settings on Le Mans (oldest model on Gt7), yet I saw no one claiming it was done in bad faith to have GT looking bad.

Benzy comparison was more accurate for this thread as it uses the XSX version.

The track doesn't matter, it will vary in every game. You just can't claim bs only for one side...

On your performance RT point... wow, thank God, I would hope so as those shadows in the pictures are just disgusting. I hated GT Sport bad shadows but those are incredible that they released it this way

 

[SkyHighTrees]

We should compare old and new to see how they hold up on different tracks. Forza is out later so it should look better no mather what. Watkins glen and Road Atlanta are the best looking real tracks in GT7, and there is a reason for that.

Actually there is, the shadows, textures, draw distance, fences, reflections, grass, ao and texture filtering is better in RT performance mode. And the visual mode goes even further by adding trees, foliage, grass, better iq and longer draw. distances.

The visuals mode is an acquired taste... 30fps for better graphics. Why is the performance mode so bad? It should be better without RT, have better IQ and whatnot. It feels neglected.

Great that performance RT looks better, at least there's hope, can B benzy remake his comparison?

 

[Turk1993]

I said that Turk1993 made a comparison using max PC settings on Le Mans (oldest model on Gt7), yet I saw no one claiming it was done in bad faith to have GT looking bad.

And thats the reason why i stoped posting my comparisons in here. This thread is console vs console, and there is a gap between pc vs xbox version in Forza.

 

[sendit]

I repeat, you are deceiving yourself if you want to think that there is a radical difference between PC and XSX. It's the complete opposite beyond extra AF and slightly texture sharpness.

Low vs Ultra in most settings is very difficult to distinguish except at 400% zoom. The fact is that most of the most important features mentioned in the comparison are 1:1 console vs PC (lighting, circuit detail, circuit assets, aymospheric effects, car model, lods...).

The funny thing is that in that comparison the performance mode is used in XSX and it doesn't seem like that is a problem however

How are you constantly wrong? benzy used equivalent modes for both games.

 

[Turk1993]

Also bought a copy of GT7 for my cousin because he enjoyed the game at my house. Hes now looking for a wheel setup and VR .

 

[Darsxx82]

How are you constantly wrong? benzy used equivalent modes for both games.

Equivalent modes??
It is you who is constantly wrong as long as you show you do not know the characteristics of each mode in FM.

FM performance mode has worse assets than RT mode. There is nothing equivalent in GT7....

PS. Turk1993 tells you in his post above

And thats the reason why i stoped posting my comparisons in here. This thread is console vs console, and there is a gap between pc vs xbox version in Forza.

There is a gap, but it is not necessary much less considerable as to not make the PC comparison appropriate here. The fact is that the aspects valued here (track detail, lighting, LODs...) are generally 1:1 on PC vs XSX. The XSX quality mode is 1:1 beyond Af.

 

[Three]

Equivalent modes??
It is you who is constantly wrong as long as you show you do not know the characteristics of each mode in FM.

FM performance mode has worse assets than RT mode. There is nothing equivalent in GT7....

PS. Turk1993 tells you in his post above

There is a gap, but it is not necessary much less considerable as to not make the PC comparison appropriate here. The fact is that the aspects valued here (track detail, lighting, LODs...) are generally 1:1 on PC vs XSX. The XSX quality mode is 1:1 beyond Af.

It's bizarre that you're complaining about some kind of huge difference between two very similar modes while at the same time suggesting the PC difference is negligible to XSX. It's comical, I'll give you that.

 

[Turk1993]

Equivalent modes??
It is you who is constantly wrong as long as you show you do not know the characteristics of each mode in FM.

FM performance mode has worse assets than RT mode. There is nothing equivalent in GT7....

PS. Turk1993 tells you in his post above

There is a gap, but it is not necessary much less considerable as to not make the PC comparison appropriate here. The fact is that the aspects valued here (track detail, lighting, LODs...) are generally 1:1 on PC vs XSX. The XSX quality mode is 1:1 beyond Af.
.

You want to know something funny ? The visual mode on Series X has sometimes more trees, grass and foliage than the pc version in his comparison. I need to check out this myself to be sure, maybe the pc version has bugged grass and trees. FFS Turn 10 you had one job, more work for me i guess.

Just look at the grass, trees and foliage, where the fuck is it in the pc version.

 

[Darsxx82]

It's bizarre that you're complaining about some kind of huge difference between two very similar modes while at the same time suggesting the PC difference is negligible to XSX. It's comical, I'll give you that.

What is bizarre is that you come to say that the differences between performance mode and RT mode are less noticeable than those between XSX and PC when you didn't even know the differences between XSX modes....

The fact is that it is clear that you did not know about them and yet you have seen appropriate to argue baselessly and even defend someone wich clearly didn't know.



You have quality comparative videos and in them you can see how the aspects discussed here are 1:1 PC vs XSX (circuit detail, lighting, reflections, shadows, viewing distance, LODs cars detail...). What is the argument for not being able to use a PC capture when the element to be compared is 1:1 with a console?

 

[Horseganador]

Compare Forza on PC vs GT7 on PS5 = good
Compare Forza on SX vs GT7 on PS5 = bad

 

[Darsxx82]

You want to know something funny ? The visual mode on Series X has sometimes more trees, grass and foliage than the pc version in his comparison. I need to check out this myself to be sure, maybe the pc version has bugged grass and trees. FFS Turn 10 you had one job, more work for me i guess.

Just look at the grass, trees and foliage, where the fuck is it in the pc version.

I wouldn't be surprised if the PC version was bugged. The main reason is that it was also in FH5 launch and precisely in relation to vegetation lods.

Alex (DF) did not compare the quality mode of XSX with PC to know if something was wrong. It actually made sense to focus on the 60fps mode, but it would have been interesting to know how far the hardware was being stretched in that mode as well.

 

[Turk1993]

I wouldn't be surprised if the PC version was bugged. The main reason is that it was also in FH5 launch and precisely in relation to vegetation lods.

Alex (DF) did not compare the quality mode of XSX with PC to know if something was wrong. It actually made sense to focus on the 60fps mode, but it would have been interesting to know how far the hardware was being stretched in that mode as well.

Someone should post this to them because they can shove this in Turn 10 face. Otherwise they may not even notice this or test it against the visual mode.

 

[Jormatar]

Who cares about the graphics when both are absolute lookers. This is like comparing RDR2 and Cyberpunk on max PC settings and trying to find a winner.

But man afrer GT7 I can't imagine playing a racing game without VR.

 

[Three]

What is bizarre is that you come to say that the differences between performance mode and RT mode are less noticeable than those between XSX and PC when you didn't even know the differences between XSX modes....

The difference between performance RT mode and performance mode are smaller than the difference between xsx and PC. What gives you the idea that I didn't know the difference between the modes when it's the first time I've even posted about them?

You have quality comparative videos and in them you can see how the aspects discussed here are 1:1 PC vs XSX (circuit detail, lighting, reflections, shadows, viewing distance, LODs cars detail...).

Bullshit but if you want to believe that then be my guest. Reflections, lighting, and circuit detail are not the same.

What is the argument for not being able to use a PC capture when the element to be compared is 1:1 with a console?

What 'element' were you comparing exactly? Go to that spot in Watkins glen, switch between performance RT and performance mode. Do the fence shadows appear? No. Does the tarmac texture comparison change and become better between performance RT and performance mode? No. Does it change on PC? Possibly because it has better track textures.

If you're so adamant that performance RT mode is a big changer to benzy's comparisons then post what you think the big change is. Go to that spot with the same car and ToD, paint, etc and take a pic to make your point. shouldn't be that hard if you think the change would be substantial. Everybody can judge it then. I actually have some doubt that benzy is even in performance mode, looks more like performance RT judging by the car paint. He only mentioned "4K 60 mode". How funny would that be if he's in the mode you're demanding and you can't even tell! Wouldn't even need to mention that the PC has the benefits of both modes at once that you think is making the huge difference between them in that case.

 

[Darsxx82]

The difference between performance RT mode and performance mode are smaller than the difference between xsx and PC.

LoL, no it's not, especially when many of the core visual features are absent in performance mode and many other are proven also worse.



But it's clear that you want to create your own narrative...

What gives you the idea that I didn't know the difference between the modes when it's the first time I've even posted about them?

LoLx2

Easy, your emojis give you away

Defending the opinion of someone who said that there was no difference between modes in XSX except resolution/RT when that is a lie. At the same time you gave me a when I denied and proved that it was not true.

The opposite is to accept that you were just dishonest and wanted to misinform?

Bullshit but if you want to believe that then be my guest. Reflections, lighting, and circuit detail are not the same.

The difference in definition in textures is slight in the way that only with zoom it would be noticeable. Let's not say how difficult it would be to appreciate it in a YouTube comparison

I have already said the rest of the aspects, and you have videos to prove it, Low vs ultra is insignificant on a visual level and the important rest are 1:1 with PC. What's more, the quality mode in XSX has even better assets (bug or not)

What 'element' were you comparing exactly? Go to that spot in Watkins glen, switch between performance RT and performance mode. Do the fence shadows appear? No. Does the tarmac texture comparison change and become better between performance RT and performance mode? No.

Does it change on PC? Possibly because it has better track textures.

If you're so adamant that performance RT mode is a big changer to benzy's comparisons then post what you think the big change is. Go to that spot with the same car and ToD, paint, etc and take a pic to make your point. shouldn't be that hard if you think the change would be substantial. I actually have some doubt that benzy is even in performance mode, looks more like performance RT judging by the car paint.

This is where your reasoning problem is and where your purpose of distorting what I have said in order to serve to create your narrative is discovered.

I have not denied the validity of that comparison, I have denied the appropriateness of the comparison for some to draw absolute conclusions based on it as if it faithfully represented the reality of both games. You also have other comparisons (even better made) that favor FM but are not taken with the same "impetus"

Are all GT7 circuits the same Watkins level? NO
Are there better FM circuits than Watkins? YEs
Is a specific TOD sufficient to assess the visual and technological appearance of a game's lighting? No
Does the paint applied affect the reflections of the bodies? Yes
Are 3D trees a prominent element in FM vs GT7 as the game implements dynamic TOD and weather in all circuits? Yes

There's no more. The funny thing is that from this we move on to the fact that Turk1933's comparisons were not valid because they were PC when most of the aspects to be compared, whether better or worse than in GT7, are 1:1 with XSX.

He only mentioned "4K 60 mode". How funny would that be if he's in the mode you're demanding and you can't even tell!

??? How do you say that you know perfectly the differences between FM modes and you can't say which mode is the one in the comparison?


You know what's even more fun? That it was RT mode and that the aspects discussed are 1:1 with the PC version and then you defend that Turk1993's comparisons that "favored" FM are not useful because there are radical differences with XSX...

 

[sendit]

Since D Darsxx82 thinks FM 2023 needs PC screenshots at the highest settings for it to be comparable:

FM 2023
- Reduced fence detail
- Horrible shadow casting from the fence on to the road, opposite side, and car
- Aggressive LOD
- Blurry road texture
- Blurry reflection of side mirrors on car

+ More outside track objects at reduced quality

 

[Crispy Gamer]

$10 vs $70

Sony shouldve put GT7 on PS+ extra by now.

I've been trying to hold out for PS+ but I'm getting weak I'll pick GT7 up on black friday

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

Goddamn, the comparison shots between forza and GT7 on this page are brutal! It's very apparent just how far behind Turn 10 is compared to PD in car detail as well as track detail on some tracks. I don't know how anyone can look at these comparisons and say with a straight face that Forza objectively looks better.

Forza looks widely inconsistent. The lighting is off and the car models look a gen behind GT7's car models in some instances.

 

[SlimySnake]

I've been trying to hold out for PS+ but I'm getting weak I'll pick GT7 up on black friday

its $40 at walmart right now. some amazon prime day sales equivalent i think. very tempting but i will wait for black friday too.

in other news, downloaded NFS unbound because it comes free as an EA play/gamepass sub and it looks stunning.

 

[Three]

LoL, no it's not, especially when many of the core visual features are absent in performance mode and many other are proven also worse.

Right, right, "core visual features". Talk is cheap. Try posting the "performance RT" versions of Benzy's shots and highlight these "core visual feature" differences. Prove your point.

This is where your reasoning problem is and where your purpose of distorting what I have said in order to serve to create your narrative is discovered.

I have not denied the validity of that comparison, I have denied the appropriateness of the comparison for some to draw absolute conclusions based on it as if it faithfully represented the reality of both games. You also have other comparisons (even better made) that favor FM but are not taken with the same "impetus"

I don't even know what point you're making here but you clearly threw a fit when somebody said he compared "equivalent modes" and started talking about "comparison in other threads that are much more faithful, 1:1" so don't give me that shit about not denying the validity.

The funny thing is that from this we move on to the fact that Turk1933's comparisons were not valid because they were PC when most of the aspects to be compared, whether better or worse than in GT7, are 1:1 with XSX.

Again why do you keep repeating this bullshit? You said the reflection aspect on PC is 1:1. You said a whole bunch of things which aren't 1:1 at all. Reflections, track details, texture details, shadows etc.

Here are the comparison with your Performance RT mode.
You said reflections are 1:1. is this reflection 1:1 with PC?

You said track details are 1:1. Are these details 1:1?

Surely shadows are 1:1 with Turks 4090? nope even that's not true

Car LODs aren't the same either even though they're close.

Nobody was suggesting any comparisons were invalid. They were making fun of your silly idea that PC to XSX comparisons were "much more faithful 1:1". we didn't move on to it either it was you who called performance mode on XSX vs performance mode on PS5 "not equivalent" and tried to suggest the PC ones are because it's more faithful and 1:1. Then went on to suggesting he should be doing performance RT mode or something.
So do it, take Benzys exact same shots in Performance RT mode. Then come back and show the core visual features in those shots that make a bigger difference. make Benzy's performance mode FM vs performance mode GT7 comparisons more faithful and 1:1.

??? How do you say that you know perfectly the differences between FM modes and you can't say which mode is the one in the comparison?


You know what's even more fun? That it was RT mode and that the aspects discussed are 1:1 with the PC version and then you defend that Turk1993's comparisons that "favored" FM are not useful because there are radical differences with XSX...

When did I ever say turks comparisons aren't useful? As long as everybody understands they're PC shots I don't have any problem with any shots shared anywhere. I just have a problem with your logic and trying to suggest it's "more faithful and 1:1" when comparing 4090 PC shots to GT7 than to use the equivalent performance modes in a FM8 XSX vs GT7 PS5 comparison thread. saying PC doesn't make a difference while simultaneously getting hung up between the use of performance mode instead of performance RT mode suggesting it makes a big difference . That's asinine.

 

[SlimySnake]

I wouldn't be surprised if the PC version was bugged. The main reason is that it was also in FH5 launch and precisely in relation to vegetation lods.

Alex (DF) did not compare the quality mode of XSX with PC to know if something was wrong. It actually made sense to focus on the 60fps mode, but it would have been interesting to know how far the hardware was being stretched in that mode as well.

Someone should post this to them because they can shove this in Turn 10 face. Otherwise they may not even notice this or test it against the visual mode.

I am about ready to drop the game. i am already putting up with 10 minute shader installs every time, but some of the latest bugs are arguably worst than anything ive experienced this year.

- menu locks up if you accidently venture into controller settings. it kept asking me to map pause to a button but wont let me map or leave. had to quit out. and sit through another shader install.
- bizarre line on the right side of the screen. changed resolution to get rid of it, but it turned into a green line at the top left of the screen. changed resolution again, this time flickering line at the left side of the screen. had to quit out and sit through another ten minute shader install.
- AMD FSR2 replaces DLSS in the menu on some boot ups. i dont need dlss at native 4k ultra so dont have to quit out but this one is hilarious because they think my RTX 3080 is an AMD card. probably why they keep reinstalling shaders.
- Weird track bug that makes it look like the track is moving. this happens when track textures settings are defaulted to auto on some boot ups.

It's clear that they didnt playtest the game on PC very much. i dont notice any difference when i turn on DLAA. i doubt its working at all.

 

[BadHaircut]

Was just able to try Forza on PC using pretty good settings.

There's no way it looks better than GT7. It just has a weird, hazy look to everything. Either that or the PC version has issues but I don't have an XSX to compare.

When the rain and nighttime light effects all hit together, you get some pretty impressive moments. But the other 95% of the time it just looks off. It's extremely noticeable on the cockpit view.

I signed up to gamepass specifically to try it out.and I'll keep going with it for a bit but it's very disappointing so far.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I know a few people have been saying that they prefer Forza trees. I don't know about 2D, 3D, or a mix of 2D3D, but I much prefer the fuller, richer trees in GT 7.

To me, that looks much more realistic and aesthetically beautiful. The trees in the photo above, especially on the right side, shows what I'm talking about.

 

[Sebmugi]

In photo mode I noticed that the quality of the RT on XSX is really basic we will say..(except on the car itself) but it also works on the glass parts, which, like the old GTs, do not let see the smoke see through.
The action distance is also a problem that GT7 does not have. in both cases a dozen cars is behind me, but FM only reaches those that are closest (RT lift of about 5m in my opinion) the rest not.
it's disappointing :/

FM

GT7

 

[sinnergy]

You want to know something funny ? The visual mode on Series X has sometimes more trees, grass and foliage than the pc version in his comparison. I need to check out this myself to be sure, maybe the pc version has bugged grass and trees. FFS Turn 10 you had one job, more work for me i guess.

Just look at the grass, trees and foliage, where the fuck is it in the pc version.

Ah visual mode it is now on my Series X, I don't mind the 30 frames.

 

[Windom Earle]

I know that Sony fanboys have been shitting on the Forza franchise for a long time. While some if it was deserved (car models, shaders, etc.) the game has always been competent and an overall sound package.

But this 2023 rendition is just a joke overall, I don't understand how people itt are still defending it. Even leaving the visuals and bugs aside, wtf is this car list and where is the Nordschleife. To a lot of people this is the only track that matters. You can't launch without it.

 

[Negotiator101]

I know that Sony fanboys have been shitting on the Forza franchise for a long time. While some if it was deserved (car models, shaders, etc.) the game has always been competent and an overall sound package.

But this 2023 rendition is just a joke overall, I don't understand how people itt are still defending it. Even leaving the visuals and bugs aside, wtf is this car list and where is the Nordschleife. To a lot of people this is the only track that matters. You can't launch without it.

I think it comes down to how good the handling is it just top level. As for the current content issues we know it's a game that will be updated for years so I guess those things are coming.

 

[Darsxx82]

Since D Darsxx82 thinks FM 2023 needs PC screenshots at the highest settings for it to be comparable:

FM 2023
- Reduced fence detail
- Horrible shadow casting from the fence on to the road, opposite side, and car
- Aggressive LOD
- Blurry road texture
- Blurry reflection of side mirrors on car

+ More outside track objects at reduced quality

You start to argue and your first step to argue is to compare a capture of the XSX performance mode (which I have proven is visually worse in most assets than RT mode and also lacks key visual features) vs a PC capture of the photo mode where many assets (as happens in GT7) improve? Great

It's funny to think that I've put up a comparison video where you can perfectly see the differences between visual modes in FM and how permonce mode show worse quallity in all aspect you indicate there, yet your response has been to ignore it and go to the PC photo mode...

That said, I love how you divert the conversation and twist what I said

Right, right, "core visual features". Talk is cheap. Try posting the "performance RT" versions of Benzy's shots and highlight these "core visual feature" differences. Prove your point.

LoL, you have comparison videos. It's clear that you prefer to ignore them and try to make people think they are the same...

RTAO (definitely the most core section), RTr, better shadows and state LODs, better LoD, viewing distance, more vegetation,..... RT mode is better in everything vs performance except resolution and yet you try to defend which is the appropriate way to make an honest or "equivalent" comparison vs GT7....

I don't even know what point you're making here but you clearly threw a fit when somebody said he compared "equivalent modes" and started talking about "comparison in other threads that are much more faithful, 1:1" so don't give me that shit about not denying the validity.

Again misrepresenting, OK.



I repeat every time you misrepresent, it is clear at this point that it is the strategy you have chosen to respond.... My point is that drawing absolute conclusions based on a specific comparison where there are many aspects that do not show the visual and technological reality of Both games seem wrong to me. It is not the comparison, it is the conclusions based on it.



Starting with wanting to make it believe that the visual level and detail of Hatkins circuit is standard in GT7. No, it is not

That there are no more visually successful circuits in FM than Hatkins. Yes, there are much better ones.

That a concrete TOD in a game with dynamic time cycle and weather is enough to demonstrate the visual and technological appearance of the FM lighting system. No, it is not.



And to this you add that the mode used in the comparison is the one that does not offer the best visual representation of FM in XSX....

Again why do you keep repeating this bullshit? You said the reflection aspect on PC is 1:1. You said a whole bunch of things which aren't 1:1 at all. Reflections, track details, texture details, shadows etc.

And there we go again



I have said that most of these differences are only noticeable at 400% zooms and others aspects that were compared are 1:1 and with your answer you agree with me

Here we go..

Here are the comparison with your Performance RT mode.
You said reflections are 1:1. is this reflection 1:1 with PC?

RTAO and RTr are core visual features. Guess where these are absent??

What you are showing there is a 400% zoom capture required to make the differences evident... Do you know what's bizarre? That in performance mode it is not that they are worse, it is that they do not exist and yet you are here defending that it is more dishonest to compare with PC (where you need 400% zoom) than with the mode where there is none and everything else is worse ....

You said track details are 1:1. Are these details 1:1?

That's not circuit detail, that's definition of textures and AF and I already mentioned that issue. Detail of the circuit is drawn elements, amount of vegetation, amount of public, quality of buildings and objects on the circuit, geometry of the terrain, volumetric lighting, atmospheric effects...... and all of that is the same. What's more, it even seems that in vegetation it is the XSX quality mode that surpasses PC.



That said, once again you require a 400% zoom to appreciate it when the comparisons are made in distant captures where it is impossible to differentiate. In fact, it is possible that this is a bug.

Surely shadows are 1:1 with Turks 4090? nope even that's not true

High-Ultra vs Ultra using a 400% zoom and you tells me that the honest thing to do is compare with the performance mode where the shadows are low.

Car LODs aren't the same either even though they're close.

The LODs of the cars, modeling and shaders are the same.

Nobody was suggesting any comparisons were invalid. They were making fun of your silly idea that PC to XSX comparisons were "much more faithful 1:1". we didn't move on to it either it was you who called performance mode on XSX vs performance mode on PS5 "not equivalent" and tried to suggest the PC ones are because it's more faithful and 1:1. Then went on to suggesting he should be doing performance RT mode or something.

You discover yourself, but nothing that surprises me being you.



You just caught the twisting of my words by a regular troll here, which says a lot about you .It is clear that no matter how much you repeat it, your narrative implies distortion but here we go again.



I have not denied the validity of any comparison, I have said that it is a mistake to draw absolute conclusions about the visual and technological appearance of both games based on a comparison for the simple fact that it would leave GT7 in a better position. For the simple fact that this comparison does not tell you the entire reality of both games as I have already explained. It Is not the comparasion.

I said that there are other comparisons that would leave GT7 in a worse position and yet no one had so much impetus to be evaluative. And yes, they were from PC, but perfectly valid since the comparisons with game modes that are not the best representatives of visual fidelity in XSX are accepted as valid.

Because as much as you don't want to accept, and as the comparisons show, there is clearly more difference between performance mode vs RT in XSX than between RT vs PC. In fact, quality mode in XSX is equivalent to PC ultra.

So do it, take Benzys exact same shots in Performance RT mode. Then come back and show the core visual features in those shots that make a bigger difference. make Benzy's performance mode FM vs performance mode GT7 comparisons more faithful and 1:1.

When did I ever say turks comparisons aren't useful? As long as everybody understands they're PC shots I don't have any problem with any shots shared anywhere. I just have a problem with your logic and trying to suggest it's "more faithful and 1:1" when comparing 4090 PC shots to GT7 than to use the equivalent performance modes in a FM8 XSX vs GT7 PS5 comparison thread. saying PC doesn't make a difference while simultaneously getting hung up between the use of performance mode instead of performance RT mode suggesting it makes a big difference . That's asinine.

Your problem is believing that the game is using the power of a 4090 graphically when it is not. As I say, the quality mode in XSX is the equivalent of Ultra (even the vegetation is superior, whether due to a bug or not). That is, you are not comparing different games.

 

[Three]

You start to argue and your first step to argue is to compare a capture of the XSX performance mode (which I have proven is visually worse in most assets than RT mode and also lacks key visual features) vs a PC capture of the photo mode where many assets (as happens in GT7) improve? Great

It's funny to think that I've put up a comparison video where you can perfectly see the differences between visual modes in FM and how permonce mode show worse quallity in all aspect you indicate there, yet your response has been to ignore it and go to the PC photo mode...

That said, I love how you divert the conversation and twist what I said

LoL, you have comparison videos. It's clear that you prefer to ignore them and try to make people think they are the same...

RTAO (definitely the most core section), RTr, better shadows and state LODs, better LoD, viewing distance, more vegetation,..... RT mode is better in everything vs performance except resolution and yet you try to defend which is the appropriate way to make an honest or "equivalent" comparison vs GT7....



Again misrepresenting, OK.



I repeat every time you misrepresent, it is clear at this point that it is the strategy you have chosen to respond.... My point is that drawing absolute conclusions based on a specific comparison where there are many aspects that do not show the visual and technological reality of Both games seem wrong to me. It is not the comparison, it is the conclusions based on it.



Starting with wanting to make it believe that the visual level and detail of Hatkins circuit is standard in GT7. No, it is not

That there are no more visually successful circuits in FM than Hatkins. Yes, there are much better ones.

That a concrete TOD in a game with dynamic time cycle and weather is enough to demonstrate the visual and technological appearance of the FM lighting system. No, it is not.



And to this you add that the mode used in the comparison is the one that does not offer the best visual representation of FM in XSX....



And there we go again



I have said that most of these differences are only noticeable at 400% zooms and others aspects that were compared are 1:1 and with your answer you agree with me

Here we go..


RTAO and RTr are core visual features. Guess where these are absent??

What you are showing there is a 400% zoom capture required to make the differences evident... Do you know what's bizarre? That in performance mode it is not that they are worse, it is that they do not exist and yet you are here defending that it is more dishonest to compare with PC (where you need 400% zoom) than with the mode where there is none and everything else is worse ....




That's not circuit detail, that's definition of textures and AF and I already mentioned that issue. Detail of the circuit is drawn elements, amount of vegetation, amount of public, quality of buildings and objects on the circuit, geometry of the terrain, volumetric lighting, atmospheric effects...... and all of that is the same. What's more, it even seems that in vegetation it is the XSX quality mode that surpasses PC.



That said, once again you require a 400% zoom to appreciate it when the comparisons are made in distant captures where it is impossible to differentiate. In fact, it is possible that this is a bug.



High-Ultra vs Ultra using a 400% zoom and you tells me that the honest thing to do is compare with the performance mode where the shadows are low.

The LODs of the cars, modeling and shaders are the same.


You discover yourself, but nothing that surprises me being you.



You just caught the twisting of my words by a regular troll here, which says a lot about you .It is clear that no matter how much you repeat it, your narrative implies distortion but here we go again.



I have not denied the validity of any comparison, I have said that it is a mistake to draw absolute conclusions about the visual and technological appearance of both games based on a comparison for the simple fact that it would leave GT7 in a better position. For the simple fact that this comparison does not tell you the entire reality of both games as I have already explained. It Is not the comparasion.

I said that there are other comparisons that would leave GT7 in a worse position and yet no one had so much impetus to be evaluative. And yes, they were from PC, but perfectly valid since the comparisons with game modes that are not the best representatives of visual fidelity in XSX are accepted as valid.

Because as much as you don't want to accept, and as the comparisons show, there is clearly more difference between performance mode vs RT in XSX than between RT vs PC. In fact, quality mode in XSX is equivalent to PC ultra.

As expected a whole bunch of arguing nothing and not a single image to show these alleged bigger differences in Benzys shots if he had used performance RT.

It's Watkins Glen not Hatkins that you keep repeating. Those aren't 400 zoom either that's the players car cropped to aid in highlighting the difference, it's the entire track at the start line, a tarmack shot like Benzys. You can avoid all this by just recreating Benzys shot to highlight whatever you feel is 'not equivalent', 1:1 or faithful.

Your problem is believing that the game is using the power of a 4090 graphically when it is not. As I say, the quality mode in XSX is the equivalent of Ultra (even the vegetation is superior, whether due to a bug or not). That is, you are not comparing different games.

Even if this were true (it's not), so you think comparing 30fps to 60fps mode is the more equivalent, 1:1 thing to do? Got it. Or you could be more reasonable and just accept Benzy's shots were a fair comparison in equivalent 60fps performance modes as he stated.

 

[PaintTinJr]

.....

Your problem is believing that the game is using the power of a 4090 graphically when it is not. As I say, the quality mode in XSX is the equivalent of Ultra (even the vegetation is superior, whether due to a bug or not). That is, you are not comparing different games.

In higher frame rate gaming, less and less GPU silicon utilisation will happen unless the GPU design is specifically designed to cater to such a frame-rate. So despite low utilisation, the game on PC could very well be using the power of a 4090, but effectively just bottlenecked by the card bandwidth of caches to maintain high-frame, that make frame-times smaller and smaller, which makes utilising parallelization of the compute units much less likely because it make latency hiding that much harder.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I think it comes down to how good the handling is it just top level. As for the current content issues we know it's a game that will be updated for years so I guess those things are coming.

Serious question: does this not get tiring? Halo Infinite, Bleeding Edge, Redfall, Starfield, and now Forza Motorsport ...

 

[roosnam1980]

the ray-tracing in forza was not worth it(on xsx at least) ......................judging from the pics posted here