Support NeoGAF

[dark10x]

I beg to differ.

Detail is nice, but not when it impacts the driving experience. I would much rather Polyphony cut some of the finer details when the framerate started to take a dive. It absolutely damages the gameplay.

Fucking hell. Both games could run at 30 fps 720p and I wouldn't give a fuck. So much more to both these games than frame rates. Jesus.

Speak for yourself. Framerate plays a large role in the simulation aspect as it creates the fluidity one should demand from a driving game. When this is compromised it impacts the response from your controller and introduces additional input lag while also ruining the visuals. Many of the finer details are very difficult to see while actually racing so removing them in order to maintain a fast framerate is important.

Polyphony opted to maintain a high level of detail 100% of the time even at the expense of performance while Turn 10 decided it was more important to hit the desired 60 fps at all times. Considering the previous two GT games on PS2 (and even the PSP game) were all 60 fps 99.9% of the time this is a huge step back for Polyphony and they should have known better.

What makes GT5 worse in this regard is that it does not simply drop frames, rather, it introduces tearing into the image which further reduces the quality. What good are those extra details when performance is compromised?

 

[Metalmurphy]

Detail is nice, but not when it impacts the driving experience. I would much rather Polyphony cut some of the finer details when the framerate started to take a dive. It absolutely damages the gameplay.


Speak for yourself. Framerate plays a large role in the simulation aspect as it creates the fluidity one should demand from a driving game. When this is compromised it impacts the response from your controller and introduces additional input lag while also ruining the visuals. Many of the finer details are very difficult to see while actually racing so removing them in order to maintain a fast framerate is important.

Polyphony opted to maintain a high level of detail 100% of the time even at the expense of performance while Turn 10 decided it was more important to hit the desired 60 fps at all times. Considering the previous two GT games on PS2 (and even the PSP game) were all 60 fps 99.9% of the time this is a huge step back for Polyphony and they should have known better.

I hope that's just a mistake.

 

[Slayer-33]

also

ferrari badge is too large

grill is shaped slightly wrong, with horrible white chicken wire. also missing small detail

front instakes arent deep enough

indicators slope too much


i'm not shitting on it lol, you know i like the game but i like to discuss car models

I'm not talking about you.

 

[dark10x]

I hope that's just a mistake.

Controller can refer to any input device. I use a 900 degree wheel when playing GT5, for the record, not an analog stick. The wheel is essential to the enjoyment of GT5, I feel. Playing with a controller is a slow, boring affair. With a wheel the game really comes to life.

 

[Xanadu]

60fps is great to have but its not even close to the most important thing like some people make out

 

[Sorc3r3r]

Detail is nice, but not when it impacts the driving experience. I would much rather Polyphony cut some of the finer details when the framerate started to take a dive. It absolutely damages the gameplay.

Yeah that's true and I agree with You.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Controller can refer to any input device. I use a 900 degree wheel when playing GT5, for the record, not an analog stick.

And you notice input lag? Cause I've never noticed it with my G25/G27, and that's something hard to miss on a racing game.

 

[Slayer-33]

60fps is great to have but its not even close to the most important thing like some people make out

Wasn't a locked 60fps the crowning achievement from GT 3 and on?

I remember how ridiculed FM 1 got when it was 30 FPS despite having way better physics than any GT game.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Wasn't a locked 60fps the crowning achievement from GT 3 and on?

I remember how ridiculed FM 1 got when it was 30 FPS despite having way better physics than any GT game.

There's a pretty big difference between an unlocked 60fps and a 30 fps game...

 

[dark10x]

60fps is great to have but its not even close to the most important thing like some people make out

I disagree, it's one of the most important things.

Are you saying you'd prefer 50% more polygons in the headlight fixture with framerate problems to a less detailed headlight at a solid 60 fps? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Sacrificing smaller details in order to reach a performance target. For 30 fps replays and still shots? Use the full details, but for gameplay, reducing those minor details in order to hold steady performance is critical.

And you notice input lag? Cause I've never noticed it with my G25/G27, and that's something hard to miss on a racing game.

The difference is minute, of course, but it is absolutely present. At 60 fps each frame is on screen for 16.67ms. When the framerate begins to dip below that, this time increases.

There are other considerations here: the displays we use typically refresh at 60 Hz (sometimes 120 Hz). If you redraw the screen at a number that does not evenly line up with 60 you will either see judder or screen tearing. It produces uneven movement that ruins the fluidity of the game. A game locked at 58 fps, for instance, will appear much less smooth than a game running at 60 fps. If you are not synced up with the monitor properly, the results are unattractive.

 

[KKRT00]

Detail is nice, but not when it impacts the driving experience. I would much rather Polyphony cut some of the finer details when the framerate started to take a dive. It absolutely damages the gameplay.

I would agree anytime if would talk about huge drops, not ones to 50 fps that happen quite rarely in real racing conditions.

Really dont generalize, fps drops [in spec II] are minor issue and arent noticable 99% of time.

I could understand that someone can see drops to 50 from time to time in FPS on mouse, because i'm sensitive and can see drops to 45 from 60, but in racing game and to 50? Hell no, its almost impossible.

 

[Xanadu]

Wasn't a locked 60fps the crowning achievement from GT 3 and on?

I remember how ridiculed FM 1 got when it was 30 FPS despite having way better physics than any GT game.

GT3 had 60fps? news to me lol

who ridiculed forza 1? that game was a masterpiece for its time

 

[dark10x]

I would agree anytime if would talk about huge drops, not ones to 50 fps that happen quite rarely in real racing conditions.

Really dont generalize, fps drops [in spec II] are minor issue and arent noticable 99% of time.

I could understand that someone can see drops to 50 from time to time in FPS on mouse, because i'm sensitive and can see drops to 45 from 60, but in racing game and to 50? Hell no, its almost impossible.

It most certainly is not impossible. I can perceive these drops 100% of the time without error. I can immediately tell the difference between a framerate of 58 fps and 60 fps simply due to the way the monitor refreshes. 58 fps will not appear smooth in comparison and that's just the nature of display technology. The reason 30 and 60 are used as targets is simply that they line up perfectly with a 60 Hz refresh. Numbers between 30 and 60 do not and produce screen judder.

If you don't notice it, that's fine, but don't pretend that it isn't possible (it is). GT5 drops constantly while playing with all but the roof cam.

GT3 had 60fps? news to me lol

who ridiculed forza 1? that game was a masterpiece for its time

That's news to you?

GT3 featured a perfect 100% locked 60 fps. GT4, in 480i, was also perfect in this regard. In 480p or "1080i" GT4 would tear or drop frames occasionally but it was still very consistent. GT5 runs much worse overall than either PS2 title.

Forza 1, on the other hand, ran at 30 fps locked. It wasn't until Forza 2 that 60 fps was introduced to the series.

 

[Dibbz]

Yes, bravo they will sacrifice such things to guarantee 60fps.. Bravo indeed..

I see why people say this thread is a honey pot.. shame really, be nice to discuss things sensibly..

Not really. What is there to congratulate T10 on? The fact they made it so obvious where they cut corners to get this game at 60fps? Lets just put it like this.

GT5
16 car grids
AI is smarter
Dynamic lighting system
Higher poly car models when racing against other cars
Dynamic weather

Forza 4 falls short of most here and some are not even supported, yet Forza fans in here will claim it's all in the name of 60fps when in fact GT5 does all the above at 1080p 60fps with only small drops to 55fps here and there.

 

[Xanadu]

It most certainly is not impossible. I can perceive these drops 100% of the time without error. I can immediately tell the difference between a framerate of 58 fps and 60 fps simply due to the way the monitor refreshes. 58 fps will not appear smooth in comparison and that's just the nature of display technology. The reason 30 and 60 are used as targets is simply that they line up perfectly with a 60 Hz refresh. Numbers between 30 and 60 do not and produce screen judder.

If you don't notice it, that's fine, but don't pretend that it isn't possible (it is). GT5 drops constantly while playing with all but the roof cam.


That's news to you?

GT3 featured a perfect 100% locked 60 fps. GT4, in 480i, was also perfect in this regard. In 480p or "1080i" GT4 would tear or drop frames occasionally but it was still very consistent. GT5 runs much worse overall than either PS2 title.

Forza 1, on the other hand, ran at 30 fps locked. It wasn't until Forza 2 that 60 fps was introduced to the series.

i guess i never noticed as i used a TV from the 80s lol, i know GT4 had 480p mode but for some reason it was cut in PAL so i couldnt use it, do you know why it was cut? i never found out

 

[Slayer-33]

GT3 had 60fps? news to me lol

who ridiculed forza 1? that game was a masterpiece for its time

lol you were only born when I was picking up my copy

Not really. What is there to congratulate T10 on? The fact they made it so obvious where they cut corners to get this game at 60fps? Lets just put it like this.

GT5
16 car grids
AI is smarter
Dynamic lighting system
Higher poly car models when racing against other cars
Dynamic weather

Forza 4 falls short of most here and some are not even supported, yet Forza fans in here will claim it's all in the name of 60fps when in fact GT5 does all the above at 1080p 60fps with only small drops to 55fps here and there.

GT 5 = has better AI a fact? What based on a video of a specific corner?

Forza has better sound for the vast majority of cars (engines/tires/impact) this ties up resources so it applies.

Forza track detail/fullness is higher even if some of the tracks are inaccurate.

Forza has a better damage model and on all vehicles.

Forza has a steady 60 fps.

All of the cars in Forza are of the same consistent quality.

 

[Wazzim]

No vsynced 60 fps was a mistake of PD, pouring everything in the game without thinking about the performance was foolish. I'm sure they have learned from GT5 and won't do such thing again for the future versions.

 

[nib95]

I'm willing to bet if we were all sat down in a room playing Spec II on regular non weather tracks we wouldn't even be able to notice the drops to 58fps, 55fps and even 50fps. It's basically a non issue. You don't actually notice it during actual gameplay.

I think some people are still judging GT5 on the performance of it's initial vanilla release.

 

[Xanadu]

lol you were only born when I was picking up my copy

:'(

 

[Truespeed]

hat orange Viper slided like boss on a grass.

I was surprised by this because it shows that the GT5 cars are looking for any route around the obstacle regardless of whether the deviation is on or off track. If you look at F4, all of the cars remain on the track which is just bizarre. Not one F4 car even so much as puts a wheel on the grass.

Found this interesting quote on the type of AI F4 uses:

TGL: Fans of the franchise felt a little bit frustrated with the AI in Forza 3. What kind of changes have been made for Forza 4?

DG: A lot actually! It has advanced everywhere really. The AI has changed quite a bit you see, since Forza 1, our AI has been based on “Drivatar” technology -- which is a learning AI. We don’t script it, which proves to be a double-edge sword. It’s a very nuance AI, but it also does things that we don’t expect.

TGL: It can be very aggressive…

DG: It can be a little. So we have to teach it, like you’d teach an adolescence, but that means it’ll pick up some things you want it to, but it will also pick up some things you don’t want it to. For this version though, we’ve trained it a lot more in passing behaviour. So we’re giving people more room to maneuver, but it’s still aggressive in relation to where it’s car is in comparison to you. This means that if it’s in the lead compared to you -- it won’t pay attention to you. Some people say “the AI doesn’t know I’m there” -- oh it sees you! We could pull up the debug AI and it’ll say “I know you’re there”.

 

[dark10x]

Forza 4 falls short of most here and some are not even supported, yet Forza fans in here will claim it's all in the name of 60fps when in fact GT5 does all the above at 1080p 60fps with only small drops to 55fps here and there.

It drops far more than "here and there" and is runs at 1280x1080 not true 1920x1080. Still, the resolution is impressive considering the performance level. I just don't think it was worth it. Besides, 720p with good AA would have looked smoother. 1280x720 with some nice FXAA would have produced awesome results with a minimal performance hit. They should have avoided MSAA altogether.

i guess i never noticed as i used a TV from the 80s lol, i know GT4 had 480p mode but for some reason it was cut in PAL so i couldnt use it, do you know why it was cut? i never found out

Ah, PAL? Yeah, a lot of PAL games from previous generations were only 50 fps (which, by the way, looks fine on a 50 Hz TV). 50 fps on a 60 Hz TV is very uneven and unattractive looking.

I should note that a TV from the 80s still has superior motion resolution in comparison to basically every flat screen ever made. LCDs and plasmas alike still are unable to refresh the screen as smoothly and artifact free as a CRT. I know, it sounds crazy, but it is quite true. 60 fps on a CRT will always appear much cleaner in motion than even 120 fps on a 120 Hz LCD. 120 Hz on a CRT is truly sublime!!!

No clue why 480p was removed from the PAL version of GT4, but I don't think it was a huge loss as that mode seemed to lower the color depth and result in serious dithering artifacts.

No vsynced 60 fps was a mistake of PD, pouring everything in the game without thinking about the performance was foolish. I'm sure they have learned from GT5 and won't do such thing again for the future versions.

Indeed. The game feels very uneven. The track visuals can range from breathtaking to PS2 level and the mish mash of high and low detail cars never stops feeling bizarre. It feels like a half finished masterpiece, basically. Quite frankly, I don't believe Polyphony were ready for current gen development. They probably attacked GT5 just as they did previous games and found themselves stuck in a deep hole as a result. It's difficult to create these assets and it feels very patchwork as a result. I suspect The Last Guardian is having similar issues (as were most Japanese studios).

GT5 turned out amazingly robust in the end, but it was rather unpolished. They've improved it since then but I still think it's pretty clear that they just were not prepared for this kind of development. There was just too much work to be done at too high a level of quality and they had to make sacrifices. It's clear that they didn't get to fully optimize their engine either as it works very differently under different loads. Daytime tracks with lower quality cars hit 60 fps without a problem, but throw in tons of particles, shaders, and high quality cars and it barely hits 60.

 

[Windom Earle]

This thread has convinced me of picking up GT5 again. Thank you based Kaz!

 

[commedieu]

I'm willing to bet if we were all sat down in a room playing Spec II on regular non weather tracks we wouldn't even be able to notice the drops to 58fps, 55fps and even 50fps. It's basically a non issue. You don't actually notice it during actual gameplay.

I think some people are still judging GT5 on the performance of it's initial vanilla release.

Even its vanilla release wasn't the unplayable mess all these forza pro's are pretending it to be. It bogged down under heavy loads..and when it did, it hardly affected driving... as it would usually be a pile up, in 1080p, with weather.

Its odd how many perm assists there are in forza, ruining its sim. Yet, people pretend a frametear is the same affect on driving reality. All in All, Forza folks haven't even had a real sim yet, to even be concerned with a framerate dip of 5fps ruining their immersion.

 

[otake]

Are these games really at a different level then say, NFS Shift 2?

Just bought a car and I'm wanting to buy a racing game to go with it.

 

[zephervack]

Are these games really at a different level then say, NFS Shift 2?

Just bought a car and I'm wanting to buy a racing game to go with it.

Shift is more arcadey and over the top, i like it a lot but i would put it in a different category than Gt5, i love both games but if i could only chose one i would go with GT5.

 

[Metalmurphy]

It drops far more than "here and there" and is runs at 1280x1080 not true 1920x1080. Still, the resolution is impressive considering the performance level. I just don't think it was worth it. Besides, 720p with good AA would have looked smoother. 1280x720 with some nice FXAA would have produced awesome results with a minimal performance hit. They should have avoided MSAA altogether.

Depends on your definition and how you play. Our online races are 60fps 99% of the time for example. And no I'm not exaggerating.


Also on a more demanding race:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=31782340&postcount=14678

http://www.youtube.com/v/nGXONhFOrkg&hl=en&autoplay=1&hd=1

 

[Wazzim]

Even its vanilla release wasn't the unplayable mess all these forza pro's are pretending it to be. It bogged down under heavy loads..and when it did, it hardly affected driving... as it would usually be a pile up, in 1080p, with weather.

Its odd how many perm assists there are in forza, ruining its sim. Yet, people pretend a frametear is the same affect on driving reality. All in All, Forza folks haven't even had a real sim yet, to even be concerned with a framerate dip of 5fps ruining their immersion.

Rfactor and iRacing are the only real sims, GT and Forza will always play pretend.

 

[Slayer-33]

This thread has convinced me of picking up GT5 again. Thank you based Kaz!

Why do you need to pick it up "again"? What happened the first time? lol..

:'(

oh wait what, you are 18 now right? Never mind, you were 8-9 when you played it?

I forgot what you said a week or two ago.

 

[nib95]

Rfactor and iRacing are the only real sims, GT and Forza will always play pretend.

True, but GT5 is the best current console in-betweener and then there's F4 for those that fancy something even more accessible and with more community emphasis.

 

[otake]

I saw the Menu system for gt5 in the gametrailers review and got confused. I figured that wasn't a good sign.

 

[Xanadu]

Why do you need to pick it up "again"? What happened the first time? lol..





oh wait what, you are 18 now right? Never mind, you were 8-9 when you played it?

I forgot what you said a week or two ago.

yea lol i got GT3 on christmas 2002 i think along with GTA3..good memories indeed

 

[commedieu]

Rfactor and iRacing are the only real sims, GT and Forza will always play pretend.

Yawn.

I play all sims PC and Console, only difference is for Forza, i can't use any of my real quality steering wheels, and its not challenging.

Topic is GT vs Forza. Forza's sim is worse than GT's, which no one can argue with. Which is why people always bring up other PC sims to devalue both.

My point is that Forza's horrible sim, isn't a problem for people. Yet a specific FPS dip, all of a sudden is the end of the world for their simulation. Which is just weird, since they are used to a world of magical physics to begin with.

 

[Heshinsi]

We already know that the F40 is wrong in F4.

It's probably why certain people keep asking for a comparison with that car and track here. People love to shit on FM as much as they can in here.

It still wont change the fact that FM 4 is the greatest console sim ever produced.

And everyone and their mother loves using Laguna Seca to shit on GT5. Fair game I say.

 

[gutterboy44]

Detail is nice, but not when it impacts the driving experience. I would much rather Polyphony cut some of the finer details when the framerate started to take a dive. It absolutely damages the gameplay.


Speak for yourself. Framerate plays a large role in the simulation aspect as it creates the fluidity one should demand from a driving game. When this is compromised it impacts the response from your controller and introduces additional input lag while also ruining the visuals. Many of the finer details are very difficult to see while actually racing so removing them in order to maintain a fast framerate is important.

Polyphony opted to maintain a high level of detail 100% of the time even at the expense of performance while Turn 10 decided it was more important to hit the desired 60 fps at all times. Considering the previous two GT games on PS2 (and even the PSP game) were all 60 fps 99.9% of the time this is a huge step back for Polyphony and they should have known better.

What makes GT5 worse in this regard is that it does not simply drop frames, rather, it introduces tearing into the image which further reduces the quality. What good are those extra details when performance is compromised?

This further confirms my suspicion that the simulation aspect of these games is completely lost on you. I guarantee your racing craft is lacking independent of frame rate. Frame rate plays absolutely zero in the simulation role. GPL, RBR, F1C, iRacing, GTR, Race 07, rFactor, and a slew of other racing sims I have played on PC all had frame rate problems at some point do to poor netcode or my shitty computer rig through the years and these are some of the best racing sims I have ever played.

If you insist that perfect 60fps is a massive bullet point between the two games, fine. But knock it off with this utter rubbish that the simulation aspect of the game hinges upon it. *looks at your tag* never mind I am wasting my breath apparently.

 

[Truespeed]

3 way comparison GT5, Real, F4

 

[inner-G]

Months later, GT5 still amazes me. The amount of content is astounding, including the patch and all the free online features. (will buy the DLC though!)

It may tear a frame sometimes, but the graphics still blow my friends and I away on a regular basis. With a wheel it is just an awesome driving experience.

 

[dark10x]

This further confirms my suspicion that the simulation aspect of these games is completely lost on you. I guarantee your racing craft is lacking independent of frame rate. Frame rate plays absolutely zero in the simulation role. GPL, RBR, F1C, iRacing, GTR, Race 07, rFactor, and a slew of other racing sims I have played on PC all had frame rate problems at some point do to poor netcode or my shitty computer rig through the years and these are some of the best racing sims I have ever played.

If you insist that perfect 60fps is a massive bullet point between the two games, fine. But knock it off with this utter rubbish that the simulation aspect of the game hinges upon it. *looks at your tag* never mind I am wasting my breath apparently.

You are wasting your breath, I'm afraid. Framerate is crucial to a game like this for me. It doesn't really matter what others say, I can't just ignore what is plainly obvious to my eyes.

I'm shocked that you are willing to put up with it.

 

[Slayer-33]

This further confirms my suspicion that the simulation aspect of these games is completely lost on you. I guarantee your racing craft is lacking independent of frame rate. Frame rate plays absolutely zero in the simulation role. GPL, RBR, F1C, iRacing, GTR, Race 07, rFactor, and a slew of other racing sims I have played on PC all had frame rate problems at some point do to poor netcode or my shitty computer rig through the years and these are some of the best racing sims I have ever played.

If you insist that perfect 60fps is a massive bullet point between the two games, fine. But knock it off with this utter rubbish that the simulation aspect of the game hinges upon it. *looks at your tag* never mind I am wasting my breath apparently.

You are arguing about the fact that 60FPS is not extremely important in a racing sim?

Seriously? Bulletpoint? What the fuck? It's a huge core gameplay piece to a racing sim. Stop trying to diminish it.

 

[nib95]

You are wasting your breath, I'm afraid. Framerate is crucial to a game like this for me. It doesn't really matter what others say, I can't just ignore what is plainly obvious to my eyes.

I'm shocked that you are willing to put up with it.

Have you even played GT5 Spec II? Just curious.

You are arguing about the fact that 60FPS is not extremely important in a racing sim?

Seriously? Bulletpoint? What the fuck? It's a huge core gameplay piece to a racing sim. Stop trying to diminish it.

Of course it is. But when GT5 now has an average frame rate of like, 59fps (non weather), what exactly are we arguing about? 1fps?

 

[Dibbz]

It drops far more than "here and there" and is runs at 1280x1080 not true 1920x1080. Still, the resolution is impressive considering the performance level. I just don't think it was worth it. Besides, 720p with good AA would have looked smoother. 1280x720 with some nice FXAA would have produced awesome results with a minimal performance hit. They should have avoided MSAA altogether.

Looking at your tag I understand that frames are a huge deal and they are to me as well but some people are blowing this way out of proportion. There are bigger flaws in Forza such as the actual driving and AI that is a way bigger problem than a 5fps drop down to 55fps in GT.

 

[Wazzim]

Yawn.

I play all sims PC and Console, only difference is for Forza, i can't use any of my real quality steering wheels, and its not challenging.

Topic is GT vs Forza. Forza's sim is worse than GT's, which no one can argue with. Which is why people always bring up other PC sims to devalue both.

My point is that Forza's horrible sim, isn't a problem for people. Yet a specific FPS dip, all of a sudden is the end of the world for their simulation. Which is just weird, since they are used to a world of magical physics to begin with.

I wouldn't agree with that, GT has too much grip sometimes. Forza is far closer to RFactor in that regard. Steering is better in GT because it hasn't those dumb hidden assists.
All I wanted to point out is that none of the two are allowed to be called 'the true sim' because they are not.


Edit: ABS on off is a joke in F4 and F3 btw, nothing like it was in F2.

 

[ElNino]

Yawn.

I play all sims PC and Console, only difference is for Forza, i can't use any of my real quality steering wheels, and its not challenging.

Topic is GT vs Forza. Forza's sim is worse than GT's, which no one can argue with. Which is why people always bring up other PC sims to devalue both.

My point is that Forza's horrible sim, isn't a problem for people. Yet a specific FPS dip, all of a sudden is the end of the world for their simulation. Which is just weird, since they are used to a world of magical physics to begin with.

Plenty of people can argue that. In this thread however, such debate would be as useful as tits on a bull.

It is great for laughs however.

 

[commedieu]

You are wasting your breath, I'm afraid. Framerate is crucial to a game like this for me. It doesn't really matter what others say, I can't just ignore what is plainly obvious to my eyes.

I'm shocked that you are willing to put up with it.

Put up with what? I mean its really painfully obvious you're exaggerating its performance dips. I wouldn't play GT5 if it was unplayable due to the FPS. Neither would anyone else. I'd be willing to bet that your PS3 is broken, if its running at 10fps constantly, causing you to fly off the road every race. Or that your vision is severely sensitive, and allows you to be hung up on 55fps.

GT5 has its dips, but those dips aren't constant. 15 cars ahead of you, yes. Theres a dip... outside of that.. when you get in front, or there are less cars loaded on the road, its not a game killer.

You just load up gt5, and get a constant 30fps for 5 minutes, what are you experiencing?

Plenty of people can argue that. In this thread however, such debate would be as useful as tits on a bull.

It is great for laughs however.

No need to argue it, Forza has permanent assists on.

 

[Slayer-33]

Of course it is. But when GT5 now has an average frame rate of like, 59fps, what exactly are we arguing about? 1fps?

That wasn't the point of my post, read what I wrote.

 

[gutterboy44]

You are wasting your breath, I'm afraid. Framerate is crucial to a game like this for me. It doesn't really matter what others say, I can't just ignore what is plainly obvious to my eyes.

I'm shocked that you are willing to put up with it.

So by your standard, installing a 10 year old PC racing game and having it run at 300fps is probably the most realistic racing simulation to date. Why settle for 60? 600fps or bust.

Forza 4: The Real Framerate Simulator


I can't believe people who are trying to prove the merits of a RACING GAME are obsessed with 1-10 fps difference. It is like saying France is a better country because it is closer to Russia.

 

[Gafapastismo]

3 way comparison GT5, Real, F4

http://i54.tinypic.com/1zn1iky.png/IMG][/QUOTE]

No horse in back grill?

Fix this shit PD.

 

[Slayer-33]

So by your standard, installing a 10 year old PC racing game and having it run at 300fps is probably the most realistic racing simulation to date. Why settle for 60? 600fps or bust.

He's saying that a steady 60 FPS is important in a racing game, specially a sim type. You are trying to make the argument about something else.

 

[Truespeed]

wow

Different car models used for when only one car is on the track and when there are 12.
Bravo Turn 10.

That's just one of the many tricks they use to achieve their 60 FPS. Anti-aliasing also drops to 2xMSAA when there is more than 1 car. GT5 maintains 4xMSAA regardless of the number of cars.

 

[commedieu]

So by your standard, installing a 10 year old PC racing game and having it run at 300fps is probably the most realistic racing simulation to date. Why settle for 60? 600fps or bust.

Forza 4: The Real Framerate Simulator


I can't believe people who are trying to prove the merits of a RACING GAME are obsessed with 1-10 fps difference. It is like saying France is a better country because it is closer to Russia.

Its all they have at this point. Visuals, GT5 still holds the crown. THey can't even argue the standard cars anymore, as according to the FPS logic, makes for a better experience that PD compromised quality for it.

Forza's sound kicks the teeth out of GT, and that livery editor is much much want. Also, GT5's car list is horrible.

But the FPS thing, from probably below junior racing enthusiasts, is just a "meh" concern, when they can't even be upset over a track being widened.

 

[Infamous Chris]

Lots of desperation in this thread from GT5 "fans" :lol

Oh how the king hath fallen