Phat Michael
Banned
You won't notice it going by at 200 kph on 60fps.
Forza Motorsport 6 Demo Frame-Rate Test (Digital Foundry)
- Thread starter Fortinbras
- Start date
Windom Earle
Member
Nah I'm not joking but maybe I can't spot the tiny details some of you keep going on about, don't know, they honestly all look very very similar. But I respect your negativism, we all have different things we focus on and different ways to discuss stuff, I guess I'm more focused on the positives than the negatives this time, and I'm known for being an extreme framerate nut so it's kind of hard to impress me with just graphics if the framerate is bad while it's easier to impress me with the graphics if the framerate is also good. Again, locked 60fps with graphics like this is pretty insane going by what we've seen so far this generation. Seeing the indy car race on a projector screen and controlling it with a TX wheel had me grin and go wow wow haha wow etc
I'm sure Gran Turismo will top it though, if they just get enough time to optimize the engine, but until then Forza is king.
Assuming you are talking from a tech perspective, I think Project Cars is the better looking sim racer with dynamic lighting and weather.
Gameplay wise they all pale in front of Assetto Corsa.
Dead Man Typing
Member
Game looked great to me. Loved the reflections on the wet track surface combined with the 24 cars on track. We're only 2 years into the gen, there's plenty of time for further graphical improvement.
I think the framerate dips for a split second when you cancel out of a rewind and resume play. If that's the only instance that it drops from 60fps (apart from replays, pre/post race) then that is really impressive.
I think the framerate dips for a split second when you cancel out of a rewind and resume play. If that's the only instance that it drops from 60fps (apart from replays, pre/post race) then that is really impressive.
Wrong thread.
And yes, it goes to show you that screenshots sometimes don't represent how the game actually looks when you're playing it.
I'd love to see what kind of concession Project Cars would need to make to have the flawless performances of Forza 6.
thelastword
Banned
Are these racers doing more than F6 technically? Like 40 cars on screen with some of the most vicious weather effects in a racer, a much better lighting model, better looking cars on track and a much superior IQ?
I think you are assuming many things, I suspect you just want me to concentrate on the framerate and not how they got to achieving it. So this thread should be a framerate circle jerk.
Many things you guys are saying are just assumptions. Sinnergy pointed some features as next gen features, I explained it was not. IBL and PBM are not new features in Forza. Are you saying I'm wrong here? He even brought in basic/standard gpu features like AF, when very little is being used and he spoke of textures when general low detail and weak textures is evident for all to see. At least I have a frame of reference from where I'm talking, but I think people just want to say things, make claims and when it doesn't stick they want to get personal, it's a bit childish tbh. At least own up to what you've said.
As for me, I'm all about the evidence, please show me what you mean when you say it. I'd like that Sinnergy expand on his take on the physics in Forza or the IBL he deems that's so revolutionary in this version, but many people just like to parrot a claim......
In any case, I was telling Al Strong, I think assets differ per track and in different circumstances. I believe that still stands. Picture some of the 2D onlookers on the buildings in Rio. I think the ones nearer to the track are a bit more detailed. I'm not sure having sprites rotate to a camera is revolutionary either, but it is what it is.
So you're all for containing that circle jerk before it gets out of hand eh? Howabout people just being plain enthusiastic and appreciative of Turn10's priorities? Just because it doesn't aligned with yours doesn't mean it shouldn't go diminished, which seems to be your pure intent in this thread.
And there's nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they're reasonable. You're doing the same making broad statements about your expectations on certain visuals, critiquing them as though the choices Turn10 made are baseless. Your narrow-minded nature of your criticism implies that you're making your own assumptions too.
And you know what? I see nothing wrong with making assumptions as long as they come from a reasonable, open point of view. With your last reply, you seem hellbent on calling people out for making assumptions in the first place when you needed checking yourself.
As for you wondering if I want the discussion to revolve around framerate and not how they achieve it, well you're wrong (another assumption you made there, if i were to be so finicky). I wouldn't be pointing out how the game looks ugly compared to certain other racers if I wasn't acknowledging the compromises they had made to achieve it. You seem to be in denial about that aspect of this discussion :/
And hey, the sprite example I made wasn't to showcase how it rotates in relation to the camera viewpoint LMAO! It was to illustrate the shading properties of the 2D sprite. Can't believe you actually thought that. And to think you were knowledgable about these sorta stuff.
Yes. You're concentrating on the bells and whistles and not on how they achieved those. Like running at 900p and an inconsistent framerate.
Doing both of those things allow headroom in other areas turn10 has chosen to sacrifice.
We understand forza is lacking. But stop propping other racers up as if they're equal or doing more across the board.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
So Forza 6 brings us static night and static rain + puddles.
Not complaining but I hope for Forza 7 they expand on that and do dynamic day/night cycles, changing puddles (to some degree) and basically expand cars and tracks as always
Can´t do everything with a production cycle of 2 years.
I don't get the desire for a dynamic day/night cycle during a 2 or 3 lap race. Seems kinda pointless to me. An open world game or a Le Manns type race game I get, but the need to cram 24 hours of light changes into a 5 minute race I don't get.
It's just a cool feature to have, seeing the day/night transition in real time. But that aside, dynamic cycle also allows us to set a race at practically any hour we want, on any track (because lighting can be changed dynamically and doesn't have to be prebaked into different versions of a single track). So I can see its appeal there. I just don't think it'll happen with the Forza Motorsport series this generation, would love to be proven wrong.
thelastword
Banned
No, I'm no circle jerk police, you could do so all you want. You can be appreciative of their efforts also, I have never knocked that. You will never hear me telling anyone not to purchase F6, I believe the best way to show your respect for what a developer has done is to purchase the product. Still this is not a "convince me to buy Forza thread", I think that's better suited for the OT with impressions.
This is a tech thread and people dissect what is new at the tech table and how the series is achieving 60fps. It's not a new thing that the Forza series is a solid enough 60fps, is that the only point of discussion warranted in the 5th 60fps title from Turn 10?
And no, assumptions are not needed in a tech thread, I don't need DF to assume that SSAO is better than HBAO, I don't want DF to assume that SSS is some streaming problem. That does not belong here, just as people who thought IBL and PBM was a new thing for the Forza series, when IBL was there since F4 and PBM since F5. No, for these tech threads factual information is what we go by.
I get that feeling that some Forza fans have come into this thread, assuming that this is the OT. If you love Forza, go buy it, this is only the breakdown of how it accomplishes things and the graphical effects that made it in, did not, etc...Nobody is affecting Forza sales here.
I've never propped other racers, you brought other racers into the equation, so I replied. If my memory is hazy, could you show me where I propped other racers apart from answering to what you said.....You brought other racers into the conversation.
Perhaps my memory is not hazy after all...this is what you said.
theWB27 said:
In any case take care guys, got to go now.......
You did say a series in 2015 that doesn't have day night/weather cycles. However you want to word it...that is putting it along side other series that do have these things. I didn't say any particular game either...Just that others aren't hitting that framerate. You chose to throw numbers out there for another racer...I countered it.
Neither one of us named another game, but we were both using them as a metric..in 2015.
All I've seen is people try and point out why forza is the way it is..technically. Also...You pointing out this is a framerate circle jerk in a thread specifically made for the...ding ding ding...DF framerate test is a little confusing.
Easy mistake, there's a few active FM threads and all of them have been clusterfucked off topic...
Yep, and I'm all for that. Breaking down a game to its elements and highlight where the compromises are made. But you've always come at it from a critiquing, narrow point of view...when analysis isn't just about negative judgement.
You said this is a tech thread right? Ok. So you point out how ugly the grass or the buildings look, but do you bother to point out any positives? You didn't. That or you're incapable of doing so because to you, no improvements/differences in visuals from the previous game here warrants a mention. You don't seem to think that these new features:
- higher geometric detail (more 3D crowd models, more cars on tracks, increased trackside detail compared to the last game, tire walls)
- wet track surfaces with accurate reflections
- dynamic lighting from headlights of cars during night races/ your own headlights casting dynamic shadows of other cars
- implementing these added features at flawless 1080/60fps
...are an improvement from the last game. That's why you didn't bother mentioning them right? You wanted better IQ and when I said they might've not been able to achieve all those above things if the game had better IQ, you said I'm assuming many things. Seems like you just want your great IQ, and that's the end of that. Your narrow-mindedness is what hamper discussions, thinking reasonable assumptions have no place in them. See you soon
Project Cars also has a lower resolution, screen tearing, and an inconsistent framerate.
It tries to do a lot of cool stuff which is really commendable, dynamic weather, lighting, 40 cars, etc but it falls short of it's ambitions on the Xbox One version at least. If given the choice between Forza 6 and Project Cars in terms of visual fidelity I'd still give it to F6 since you get both a higher resolution and framerate with set weather and time of day as graphical "bonuses" even though those really should be standard for the series at this point.
Fortinbras
Member
Track detail is also really bad compared to Forza 6.
Hmm, I haven't seen enough of Project Cars to compare the track detail between the two but I'll check it out.
Overall I think Turn 10 picked the right set of tradeoff's to get it running smoothly. For sim racers I think performance takes a lot more precedent than other features like dynamic lighting and weather. Granted, out of the two I would prefer weather but if it can't be done then not a big deal.
yeah that doesn't look like wizardry to me
drugstore_cowboy
Member
There's a minimum of 60 different ones displayed every second!
Don't like that shot, there's gonna be another along very shortly, plenty to choose from. Think about that!
SaganIsGOAT
Junior Member
Yawn
Well you see, I think most of them are bad looking, i just picked the worst one to fit my agenda
Well, at least your honest about it.
Well yeah I mean what else could I have said?
transformer
Member
Have you actually played the game and observed what it looks like in motion? I have a feeling this wouldn't fit your agenda either.
Forza 6 no, I have seen Forza 5 and Horizon 2 and they both look pretty great
Caayn
Member
Haha, thanks for bringing a smile to my face in this thread!
Forza getting bashed to death by Sony fanboys is nothing new. You should've seen GAF when Forza 3 demo came out.
Nah it's just sony fanboys bashing forza, happens all the time
SamastahSukhino
Banned
It's ok, get over it hoo-doo. No reason to pull the persecution complex card. I recently played the demo and I don't know. It looks like forza 5 to me and feels the same. I'm not a race game fan so maybe my perception is skewed. It did run a locked 60 and was 1080p though. Besides forza there's no locked 60fps and 1080p racing game on current gen (that i know of). So I will give credit to turn 10 giving racing fans what they want.
But apparently mentioning that it's a relatively modest and incremental graphical upgrade instead of a game that blows minds everywhere, gets you labeled as a 'Sony Fanboy' in this very thread.
We know T10 delivers on framerates and resolutions, they have been praised for it for almost every game they made. But why isn't it also okay for people to mention that they expected more of a graphical bump compared to F5, a launch title? Nope, must have an agenda. I ask you, what even is the point of DF threads then? Performance is one part of the package and they delivered, there are plenty of other parts to discuss. Stifling legit criticisms by claiming that these people are merely 'sony fanboys' with an agenda, well I'd consider that a persecution complex.
SatansReverence
Hipster Princess
I think it's ok to have that expectation, as long you're capable of having a discussion based on assumptions. We've seen what Turn10 did going from Forza 2 to 3; that was a significant leap in graphics so it's reasonable to assume they could achieve the same here. But what's also valid is the notion that maybe, just maybe, the introduction of new features leaves little headroom this time for a big visual upgrade. There's no need to question the point of DF threads; opposing viewpoints contributes to a healthy discussion. Problem arises when someone opinionated has a limited way in looking at things, especially if that person's platform allegiance are as plain as day to anybody who frequents the forum enough. So I don't think people really take issue with the game not described as visually stunning; F6 not looking as good as a couple other racers is a fact that isn't lost on all as far as I can tell.
Hey, how come you didn't use the same argument as above in my defense, but adjusted to fit the situation, when I pointed out Driveclub's flaw regarding heavy precipitation impacting gameplay a couple of days ago? I don't remember seeing you tell everyone that they should not call me biased just because I pointed out a flaw with the game. Was that because I was off-topic, since gameplay is not graphics, and that was a graphics thread? Why are you talking graphics in a performance thread, then?
thelastword
Banned
It's true though, rain effects, weather and night racing has been a thing for other racers for a while now. I'm not sure using that as a major revolutionary feature for the series has any impact anymore, especially when there are racers which does it much better.
I think the most interesting thing is the 3D puddles, but how authentic is it? As for the Df framerate test, yes, discussion was based on a framerate video, but that video also displayed graphical quality and effects, some shots were also posted and some discussion was raised. Do you believe we should still be talking about F6's 60fps at this point, what exactly would you have us know about it? What positives about the framerate do you think that should be discussed.further?
It's the same for MGSV, it has a good framerate, move on, do we need to go on a trance on framerate for that game, we've established it's great, so discussion was funnelled elsewhere, like effects, SSS, lod, lighting etc....for example... things DF missed, based on wrong assumptions. Usually, anomalies raise debates, or what we feel should be standard fare; like why are these assets so low rez, why is weaker hardware performing better than superior hardware etc...These are the things people question.
As I've said to you, assumptions have no place in a tech thread, not when you're listing features as you have. Is it confirmed that F6 is using 3D crowd models? Most of the features you listed are cosmetic at best, tire walls? Why don't you tell me about major graphical features like the 3D puddles T10 was talking about?Yep, and I'm all for that. Breaking down a game to its elements and highlight where the compromises are made. But you've always come at it from a critiquing, narrow point of view...when analysis isn't just about negative judgement.
You said this is a tech thread right? Ok. So you point out how ugly the grass or the buildings look, but do you bother to point out any positives? You didn't. That or you're incapable of doing so because to you, no improvements/differences in visuals from the previous game here warrants a mention. You don't seem to think that these new features:
- higher geometric detail (more 3D crowd models, more cars on tracks, increased trackside detail compared to the last game, tire walls)
- wet track surfaces with accurate reflections
- dynamic lighting from headlights of cars during night races/ your own headlights casting dynamic shadows of other cars
- implementing these added features at flawless 1080/60fps
...are an improvement from the last game. That's why you didn't bother mentioning them right? You wanted better IQ and when I said they might've not been able to achieve all those above things if the game had better IQ, you said I'm assuming many things. Seems like you just want your great IQ, and that's the end of that. Your narrow-mindedness is what hamper discussions, thinking reasonable assumptions have no place in them. See you soon
Tbh, I was very unimpressed with the headlights from demo footage, it was probably the first thing I mentioned in one of the recent Forza threads. Headlights looks ok from the driver's perspective with some decent shadows, but having several cars on screen and seeing these cars approaching a front cam, it looks bad. It's cool that Forza finally has nighttime racing, but what really sells nighttime racing is great lighting, which is very flat and unconvincing in F6.
I won't say too much about the physics, but I don't like the twitchiness in the way cars move and transitions from corners, undulations or from one side of the track to the other (which includes) tailing cars or positioning a takeover. The physics and transitions from that look like it needs work. I won't say more on it before persons say I'm treading into gameplay related discussion.
Yet, this is where it gets muddied. The argument that if you point out some issues in a tech thread, that you are a fanboy or somebody who favors a platform. I'll tell you something, the only thing I favor is progress. For multiplats, I want each piece of hardware to get performance and graphical features commensurate with their capabilities, so if a multiplat should be 60fps on a console I expect it, if it should have better presets and loadtimes, I expect it, if it should have better textures I expect it, especially when lower end hardware runs said games with aplomb.
For exclusives like Forza, I expect a bit more due to the first's party's familiarity with the hardware. When F5 launched, many were disappointed with it's graphical leap, it's IQ, they were all hot talking points. It is not farfetched to believe that people expected a bigger improvement in that department, since the XBO was mired with Kinect and other resources which have now gone back to developers. Of course... people also gave a pass due to rushed launched software etc...... So, ok fine, it's now known that XBO is not exacly suited for 1080p, why then didn't the developer opt for the 900p that so many XBO owners have claimed to be fine with, and push the quality of it's assets....
paragonpro
Banned
Looks fine, but there are some flat textures and poor foliage that I'm not a big fan of. The game runs like a fucking horse, seriously for me, I haven't played a racing game that feels this good since forza 5. Drive club does look abit better though, but if sacrifices needed to be made for performances sake Im fine with that.
...Scatter...
Banned
Oh good old Hoo-doo. While the graphics of the game remain close to Forza 5 (which looked great), the technical achievements include the following:
1. Placing more assets on the track. 33% more cars on track I believe.
2. Delivering weather including night and rain with strong execution that goes beyond graphics and also dynamically impacts gameplay even if the conditions themselves are not dynamic.
3. Crowds received an upgrade apparently, much to my chagrin (because who really cares about the crowd unless its just abysmally bad execution).
DriveClub looks better graphically. Is that what you want to discuss? Even though the comparison is not apples to apples it does look better. As to what execution of racing is superior, 30 fps with greater IQ, or 60 fps, with lesser IQ, I'll say that's up to preference.
Ultimately the problem with your argument is that what looks "graphically" better to you is subjective. I think Forza 6 looks better than Project Cars in certain ways. I'll give you an example, the windshield rain in Forza 6 moves with the momentum of the car similar to Drive Club. Project Cars rain is just stagnant on the windshield with rain drops magically appearing. But, thats just my opinion that it looks better. Now, Project Cars from a technical stand point is supposed to be 1080p60fps (at least on PS4) but when this "dynamic rain" starts even 8GB of GDDR5 couldn't stop that framerate from dipping to the low 40s. I just think (at least on console) there is going to be a compromise. If you want eye candy it will be there at 30fps. Maybe GT7 in 2017 (or later) is going to have it all at locked 60fps.
SamastahSukhino
Banned
The kid(I hope he is) gets upset anytime he doesn't get what he wants. He has a very strong narrative, and I suggest we respect it. I'm gonna load up the demo and look at the crowd and buildings. Nothin says racing like stopping to move the camera over to make the game look like shit!
statham
Member
just a guess, but If the game was 900p and had every bell/whistle, we would have comments why didn't they go with 1080 and lower *stuff*, its a no win, they made the choice, game looks and plays great, just enjoy it, unless you are PS4 only and still waiting got GT7, lets hope they choose framerate over graphics.
Phat Michael
Banned
are the people bashing this the only ones who havent actually played the demo?
I just played the first two races and they look and sound great. it's so damn smooth like playing an arcade game.
you know you have done well when people have to focus on trees or buildings in the background to talk about your "sub par image quality"
I just played the first two races and they look and sound great. it's so damn smooth like playing an arcade game.
you know you have done well when people have to focus on trees or buildings in the background to talk about your "sub par image quality"
Iced Arcade
Member
played the demo and it was amazing. those bashing it that haven't played it should really give it a shot
statham
Member
wait until the next race, the speed in that car is just insane.
GHG
Member
This is not true since patch 3.0 dropped a few weeks ago. The rain droplets now move around and interact like they do in Driveclub. This happens on the body of the car as well, not just on the windshield.
That race was amazing. The sense of speed is just phenomenal. That race sold me on the game.