Forza Motorsport 6 Demo Frame-Rate Test (Digital Foundry)

wait until the next race, the speed in that car is just insane.

man i finished 4th in the 2nd one...so didnt qualify just yet haha. i chose the WRX STi 22B and will have to give it another go again. Im not great at racing games so will give it a go tonight.

I must admit, im more a fan of the "Horizon" series than the main line forza games - they just seem a bit more wild and fun to me in tone. Will still pick this up though as it looks great.
 
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?

It's not a flaw, it's your preference. You don't want rain impacting your vision like it does in real life.
 
So I know that this conversation isn't from this thread but if you will allow me, I think I'm at least slightly on topic.

I Just wanted to take a minute and commend these gentlemen on the way they handled their discussion. Not once did they even attempt to anger each other in any way and they also didn't make any silly snarky comments at the developer. Not once did it seem that they were trying to warrior for any certain console or brand. They were objective and humble about their knowledge of tech and discussed it in a way that made sense from their perspective (didn't develope the game).

This is the first time in a while that I actually learned something new and cool on this forum and it didn't feel like any platform wars anything was involved.

I personally think that if more conversations went this way threads like this wouldn't become so toxic.

SimplisticPotableBlueandgoldmackaw.gif


FakePleasantFowl.gif


FavorableGentleDungenesscrab.gif

In that gif, the flags overhead cast sharp shadows on the track. You can see the flags reflected in the windscreen of the car as it passes underneath, but, as far as I can tell, there are no shadows cast on the car itself.

It's a great-looking gif, but I can't unsee the missing shadows on the car.

The carbon fiber parts do show shadows. But most of the car is covered in a metallic paint, which does not reflect diffusely. For example, try placing an object between a light source and a mirror: the object won't cast a shadow on the mirror.

Ok, I can see something on the non-reflective paint. Also there's a shot from the other thread which clearly shows shadows being cast on the car when the car has a flat yellow paint job.

So, never mind, I guess.

Well the lighting on the chrome paint is actually not really correct in the quoted gif. As has been said, diffuse materials behave differently than perfect mirrors (see the difference between the reflections on the wind shield and the carbon parts). But the chrome paint is somewhere in the middle between a perfect mirror and a perfectly diffuse material, and thus would in reality show a blurred reflection (things further away are blurred more than those close) of the environment. But the chrome doesn't pick up any of the colors / shadows of the flags, unlike the windshield or the carbon parts. Seems they have used a simplified model for displaying glossy reflections.. (still looks very good imo, but it does look a bit off in the given situation)

mobile.18ese8.jpg


I don't know why, but this shot got me. Looks amazing
...and I'm not even a fan of the car, our neighbor's son had one and he's an idiot.

Usually I'd say FM looks great but not particularly natural and *real*.

This looks TV-commercial quality. Great and real.

That's something I'm still struggling to understand. Typically, cars with white / grey or black paint look very natural, while colored cars (especially red and blue it seems) look rather unrealistic and oversaturated. I wonder if it has anything to do with metamerism, but probably not. Might just be that the shaders used multiply all reflected light with the paint color (besides pure reflections I guess), which is incorrect, since afaik car paint has small metallic flakes the reflect light without attenuation.. Another problem might be Fresnel effects, that is different reflection behaviour depending on the viewing angle, which may or may not change the effect color has on the lighting.

After that ....I now wonder what you do for a living.

Also, I think only metallic and special paints ("candy paint" is an exaggeration in that) use flakes. And I doubt it has something to with fraction related physical effects on the cars, I'd imagine the mismatch with reality would be pretty big.

My guess is it's 100% intentional. Gran Turismo helicopter cam track-shots usually look more realistic (at smaller image sizes/lower res) than Forza but also less idealized hollywood'ish. In Forza "haze" doesn't exist, which keeps everything high-contrast. Driveclub does a good job with hazy environments, but I'm not sure I even want that in my Forza game, optional, sure, but not for the standard race look.

Oh I'm just a humble part time app developer / part time indie game designer who likes to muse about way too many things (often tech or physics related) I only have a partial understanding of ;)


That may very well be true. Perhaps it's not a matter of shader comlexity or post processing but rather a deliberate artistic choice. Yet I think it could partly be due to having to strike a certain compromise between having complex, natural lighting and ensuring a rock solid framerate that never wavers. But again, I'm not proficient enough in the matter to claim that with certainty.

7db.gif
 
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.

Patch 3.0 ugh? Well I stand corrected. Quick youtube looksy shows that the rain squalls only moves up the car though. It doesn't move with the side to side (ie: turning) momentum of the car like it does in Forza6 and DriveClub. Small thing, but I was happy to see Turn10 accomplish it at a locked 60fps. The broader point I trying to make though was if having extras like dynamic weather at 60fps was going to have races starting off droping frames like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZtUai5FsM
l think Turn10 made the right descion.
 
Patch 3.0 ugh? Well I stand corrected. Quick youtube looksy shows that the rain squalls only moves up the car though. It doesn't move with the side to side (ie: turning) momentum of the car like it does in Forza6 and DriveClub. Small thing, but I was happy to see Turn10 accomplish it at a locked 60fps. The broader point I trying to make though was if having extras like dynamic weather at 60fps was going to have races starting off droping frames like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZtUai5FsM
l think Turn10 made the right descion.

Rain moves up/down the car/windows dependant on speed and side to side on cornering, at least on the PC it does.

Forza's windshield rain effects run at 30fps along with the mirrors.

I feel dynamic weather at 60fps probably could be done on the console but its more a question of time/resources and how much might need to be sacrificed in other areas visually.

Its also a game design choice by the guys at turn10 as things like that effect how the races pan out. Dan has hinted at such previously.

It has to be said however that what we have at the moment is more than serviceable (day/rain look good imo, night could be better) and runs at a solid frame rate.
 
what does "Forza Motorsport 6 Demo Frame-Rate Test (Digital Foundry)" have to do with DriveClub? a completely different racing game on a different platform?

Nothing? I said this happens in every racing thread. Didn't say it was OK, just expected. It's not a Forza exclusive.
 
So I know that this conversation isn't from this thread but if you will allow me, I think I'm at least slightly on topic.

I Just wanted to take a minute and commend these gentlemen on the way they handled their discussion. Not once did they even attempt to anger each other in any way and they also didn't make any silly snarky comments at the developer. Not once did it seem that they were trying to warrior for any certain console or brand. They were objective and humble about their knowledge of tech and discussed it in a way that made sense from their perspective (didn't develope the game).

This is the first time in a while that I actually learned something new and cool on this forum and it didn't feel like any platform wars anything was involved.

Yep, I've noticed it too, and it's been a breath of fresh air. There's still the occasional drive-by bullshit from random numbskulls but the overall discussion has been civil and courteous. Criticism has been constructive and opinions have been respected because they've been fleshed out with reasoning and logic.

Some recent bans may have helped with this - a couple of the more aggressive and confrontational posters have been thankfully conspicuous by their absence.
 
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"
Don't stop there, keep on playing, just wait until you get to the indy car race, it's almost like playing Trackmania or Wipeout, it goes craaazy fast :D I play it on a projector screen and use a Thrustmaster TX wheel and oh my god it's sooo good, definitely getting that arcade game feeling just like you say. Edit: Removed, depression is nothing to make fun of. Personally I can't see why the complaints are there after that point, even I as a spoiled PC gamer is super-impressed by it.

Personally I think they pretty much nailed the performance-visuals balance. I'm actually surprised by how much they managed to cram into the engine without the framerate going down. The effects or AA or whatever people thinks should be better would obviously affect the performance so what tech would they want remove in that case? It's not like it's possible to just add everything Driveclub does and still lock the framerate at 60fps, in that case Driveclub would be 60fps too. Or are people requesting the 900p treatment this time? That would've stirred up even worse discussions.
 
I don't understand why this Indy tace is getting so much lip aervice when you could do it in Forza 5?
I've no idea why but it feels fast and more intense than previous Forza games. I was just thinking great a boring oval race, but once I played it I realised why people were so excitable about it.
 
I don't understand why this Indy tace is getting so much lip aervice when you could do it in Forza 5?
Because it's really that awesome ;)
And probably because it's further along in the game in F5 than the F6 demo, I never played any of those races in Forza 5 to be honest, need to do it now though, I just love the sense of speed in that race, feels like playing Wipeout all of a sudden lol (why oh why was Studio Liverpool shut down)
 
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?

This is where you're making assumptions of your own. You assume these features are cosmetic at best and don't demand much from the hardware. You assume that increased 3D geometry doesn't require more gpu workload, however slight it may be. You have yet come at me from a position of clear understanding so it's hard to engage with you but I always do my best to make it clear because I know sometimes the simplest of things can elude people who are blinded by their agenda :)

As for the puddles, hmmm, not sure really. I've always thought it was a gimmick but I was expecting it to be 3D pools of water that you can interact with so imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be no more than a textured polygonal plane. Then again in some games, puddles are just textures ie they have no depth. In Forza 6, you can see grass protruding out of the puddle so in that sense it's 3D?. I'd imagine that if your car parks on top of a puddle you'd see the wheels partially submerged as well. I understand how it greatly affects gameplay in complex ways though so they're by no means a gimmicky feature to me.

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 don't think it looks bad, it just doesn't look jaw-dropping either. But that isn't the point of contention is it? We both know it'll look no more than decent for a game running at 1080/60. Heh. It's amazing that you acknowledge these features exist yet you refuse to acknowledge that they might require a little bit of extra processing power. Especially when the series is well-known for using prebaked lighting yet for this game they have headlights that lit objects dynamically. Isn't that an assumption made on your part as well? Puzzling. Moving on... there's one thing that a certain other racer does with headlights in rear-vew reflections that I really REALLY love; so much so I wish other games does this. I'll take videos/screenshots and post in that game's relevant thread in the near future.

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....

HeliosT10 had the perfect reply lol..what else needs to be said really. You know the limits of the hardware. You know the developer has a rather stubborn goal of aiming 1080p. Yet you have these ridiculous expectations. I would expect that from someone who's not tech savvy... but now I'm having my doubts. BTW, your post history doesn't help you in cases like this either. How are we supposed to take you seriously thelastword... You've grown so used to criticising DFoundry, that you come into each DF thread only prepared to talk about SSS, AF, AA, LOD...your discussion fodder that you desperate cling onto without looking at things from another perspective and examine other features that are highly relevant (such as the I've listed that are new to the series). If you want to talk about image quality, sure. But harping on compromises as if none of us expected it adds little to the conversation frankly.
 
I personally felt the indycar race was the worst part of the demo. No challenge from the AI and the car was far too easy to control.

Sebring in the wet in the Corvette with no assists on the other hand... Now that's worth shouting about.
 
I personally felt the indycar race was the worst part of the demo. No challenge from the AI and the car was far too easy to control.

Sebring in the wet in the Corvette with no assists on the other hand... Now that's worth shouting about.

Agreed, it felt like i was playing Enduro Racer on the the Atari 2600, but i really like Sebring in the rain.
 
How in the world do people make these types of comparisons? Ridiculous.
Because that's how it felt to me, once up to speed it's just a case of dodging the traffic with no effort and really floaty. Have you played it? If you feels good to you carry on, it feels shit to me.
 
Because that's how it felt to me, once up to speed it's just a case of dodging the traffic with no effort and really floaty. Have you played it? If you feels good to you carry on, it feels shit to me.

Did you ramp the AI difficulty up? They're way to slow on the default setting, it's not really a race.
 
Did you ramp the AI difficulty up? They're way to slow on the default setting, it's not really a race.

To be honest it was default AI but i only have ABS and normal steering on in assists and it didn't feel connected to the track barely which is my biggest complaint about it. I'll give it another try later.
Edit i might have had TCS on as well, can't quite remember about that one.
 
Even on the highest difficulty that race is a cakewalk because the AI take a less than optimal racing line. Its just a case I dodging/slipstreaming your way to the front. And then once you are there the AI don't even attempt to slipstream you in order to retake the lead.
 
But yea, back on topic, the aliasing that you speak of in FM6, did you play the demo? Or are you talking about the aliasing in screenshots? For me personally, I couldn't see any jaggies while playing. Which is because they use temporal AA, I think, meaning it kicks in only when there's motion. But either way, it could be improved, but I doubt it.

As far as I can tell, they are still using 2xMSAA (not quite sure if it's one of the EQAA modes).

Also, "temporal" AA typically refers to reusing the previous frame data, so motion would actually kill it (or results in ghosting for the simpler implementations that don't employ reprojection or velocity weighting or are bugged).

Another definition of temporal AA (as per some Crytek presentations) can refer to motion blur.

And of course, the old ATi term for changing the MSAA sample positions every frame.
 
Even on the highest difficulty that race is a cakewalk because the AI take a less than optimal racing line. Its just a case I dodging/slipstreaming your way to the front. And then once you are there the AI don't even attempt to slipstream you in order to retake the lead.
Yes it's easy to win if you don't crash, but crash and you're out pretty much, and the insane speed, the number of cars on track, the wheel force feed back, etc made it absolutely awesome for me, my arms were aching after my first race because I was so tense lol :D

Lets talk about the worst thing with the demo though, the default assist settings. I bet lots of people will try the game and think it's way too easy and think that there is something wrong with the controls. I get that it's a way to get more casual gamers interested but you shouldn't have to go into an almost hidden assists menu to make the game play great. The default difficulty options are kind of messed up too, I believe the steering and braking assists aren't turned off until you choose hard or pro as the difficulty, which might not be the first choices for most people unless they look at which assists turns on/off. And was it even possible to change the assists until after the first race?
 
Lets talk about the worst thing with the demo though, the default assist settings. I bet lots of people will try the game and think it's way too easy and think that there is something wrong with the controls. I get that it's a way to get more casual gamers interested but you shouldn't have to go into an almost hidden assists menu to make the game play great, the default difficulty options are kind of messed up too, I believe the steering and braking assists aren't turned off until you choose hard or pro as the difficulty, which might not be the first choices for most people unless they look at which assists turns on/off. And was it even possible to change the assists until after the first race?
I suppose the thinking is that Forza vets (or even driving game vets) will assume that all assists are on and are eventually changeable, whereas someone new to racing games with new money to spend will be eased in gently. Maximum accessibility to tempt new users. It would also explain that patronising (to us) woman and all the other hand holding. Isn't the term "XP" even explained at one point?
 
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.
Projects Cars got several updates that improved performance significantly with all it's features still in tact, not withstanding, it already had great IQ and more impressive effects. Tbh, I didn't want to bring other racers into the Forza thread since there's a dedicated thread for that. Don't forget it has 16 extra cars on screen.

This is where you're making assumptions of your own. You assume these features are cosmetic at best and don't demand much from the hardware. You assume that increased 3D geometry doesn't require more gpu workload, however slight it may be. You have yet come at me from a position of clear understanding so it's hard to engage with you but I always do my best to make it clear because I know sometimes the simplest of things can elude people who are blinded by their agenda :)
I think you should stop injecting all this agenda and fanboy nonsense into your posts, it muddies anything you have to say and gives the impression that your arguments are not solid, so you hit the "he is a fanboy", "he's has an agenda" schtick. I'll tell you something, in my years of using gaming forums, the quickest people to call people fanboys are the biggest fanboys themselves. It's also what Hoo-Doo said, all these driveby, quick stab and ribbing posts serve no purpose, it's like people are personally insulted that you are giving a breakdown in a tech thread. I think the persecution complex angle is a bit unsightly tbh. It says a lot about persons really.

adelante said:
As for the puddles, hmmm, not sure really. I've always thought it was a gimmick but I was expecting it to be 3D pools of water that you can interact with so imagine my disappointment when it turned out to be no more than a textured polygonal plane. Then again in some games, puddles are just textures ie they have no depth. In Forza 6, you can see grass protruding out of the puddle so in that sense it's 3D?. I'd imagine that if your car parks on top of a puddle you'd see the wheels partially submerged as well. I understand how it greatly affects gameplay in complex ways though so they're by no means a gimmicky feature to me.
Moving on, yes. The way T10 propped the feature, this was not the expectation frankly. This is how the whole argument was raised with Sinnergy tbh. Some devs and PR do have a way of sweetening some words and features into the consciousness of the gaming public. It is only when breakdowns happen you see the real quality under the hood. I was only trying to impress upon him, that using the PR bulletpoints does not always indicate that it's a new feature at play or that features are as exponentially improved or impressive as being touted.....

adelante said:
I don't think it looks bad, it just doesn't look jaw-dropping either. But that isn't the point of contention is it? We both know it'll look no more than decent for a game running at 1080/60. Heh. It's amazing that you acknowledge these features exist yet you refuse to acknowledge that they might require a little bit of extra processing power. Especially when the series is well-known for using prebaked lighting yet for this game they have headlights that lit objects dynamically. Isn't that an assumption made on your part as well? Puzzling. Moving on... there's one thing that a certain other racer does with headlights in rear-vew reflections that I really REALLY love; so much so I wish other games does this. I'll take videos/screenshots and post in that game's relevant thread in the near future.
Woah!, you're all about assumptions aren't you....I have confirmed for myself that the shadows are solid enough from the players perspective. As for how dynamic the headlights are in Forza 6, I'm not convinced that's the case, you listed that not me. I even gave you my impressions on the headlights from the front-cam, they looked a bit static to me from that perspective. Things can't be that hazy for you surely....

Also please bare in mind, that night racing and even wet racing is prebaked in F6, it's either on or off, there's nothing dynamic about these features.


adelante said:
HeliosT10 had the perfect reply lol..what else needs to be said really. You know the limits of the hardware. You know the developer has a rather stubborn goal of aiming 1080p. Yet you have these ridiculous expectations. I would expect that from someone who's not tech savvy... but now I'm having my doubts. BTW, your post history doesn't help you in cases like this either. How are we supposed to take you seriously thelastword... You've grown so used to criticising DFoundry, that you come into each DF thread only prepared to talk about SSS, AF, AA, LOD...your discussion fodder that you desperate cling onto without looking at things from another perspective and examine other features that are highly relevant (such as the I've listed that are new to the series). If you want to talk about image quality, sure. But harping on compromises as if none of us expected it adds little to the conversation frankly.
Personally, I'll take 1080p everytime, don't ever get me wrong on that one. I would always buy a 1080p Forza game over a 900p game, I was simply arguing from the perspective of XBO owners who I've seen frequent tech threads saying "that they hardly see a difference between 1080p and 900p", and that they're fine with that rez for their games, just not 720p.


In essence, 900p would have given turn 10 a bit more performance to work with and XBO owners would not be affected by the 900p too much, as they've claimed so often.

This was only a; if not A, why not B argument. If you've been following my drift, I've been all about A. I was looking forward to a 1080p game with much better asset quality and IQ over the previous entry and I still believe the XBO can pull it off.
 
As far as I can tell, they are still using 2xMSAA (not quite sure if it's one of the EQAA modes).

Also, "temporal" AA typically refers to reusing the previous frame data, so motion would actually kill it (or results in ghosting for the simpler implementations that don't employ reprojection or velocity weighting or are bugged).

Another definition of temporal AA (as per some Crytek presentations) can refer to motion blur.

And of course, the old ATi term for changing the MSAA sample positions every frame.
Huh. So what is the AA method that only kicks during motion called? I recall a few games having this, and people were adressing at as temporal. I'm probably misremembering, then.

Omg, Googling temporal AA gives me TXAA, the one AA method I detest, given that it blurs everything. Goddamn, I have no idea why I thought temporal refered to motion-only AA. Apologies.
 
Personally, I'll take 1080p everytime, don't ever get me wrong on that one. I would always buy a 1080p Forza game over a 900p game, I was simply arguing from the perspective of XBO owners who I've seen frequent tech threads saying "that they hardly see a difference between 1080p and 900p", and that they're fine with that rez for their games, just not 720p.


In essence, 900p would have given turn 10 a bit more performance to work with and XBO owners would not be affected by the 900p too much, as they've claimed so often.

This was only a; if not A, why not B argument. If you've been following my drift, I've been all about A. I was looking forward to a 1080p game with much better asset quality and IQ over the previous entry and I still believe the XBO can pull it off.
But that proposed argument doesn't really fit, if we're going by the tech analysis of the demo it does hit a consistent 60fps so performance wise there's no reason to go to 900p.

If we're talking adding more eye candy aesthetics and they do lower the resolution to bump up other areas there would still be complaints about it not hitting 1080p so it's practically a no win situation on either side of the fence. I have my doubts on whether the engine can squeeze out more tricks like dynamic lighting and weather while doing 1080p and 60fps, Turn 10's usually been adamant about performance for the Forza series so either roll with it or go for other options.
 
I personally felt the indycar race was the worst part of the demo. No challenge from the AI and the car was far too easy to control.

Sebring in the wet in the Corvette with no assists on the other hand... Now that's worth shouting about.

Yep, way to easy. I lapped everyone and some in those 7 laps, only abs on.
 
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.

But of the course the people who have forza or xbox avatars are excluded from an allegiance

Also I shit you not, there are people in this very thread who have proclaimed Forza 6 to be a better technical showcase than Driveclub just because its 60 fps.
 
I think you should stop injecting all this agenda and fanboy nonsense into your posts, it muddies anything you have to say and gives the impression that your arguments are not solid, so you hit the "he is a fanboy", "he's has an agenda" schtick. I'll tell you something, in my years of using gaming forums, the quickest people to call people fanboys are the biggest fanboys themselves. It's also what Hoo-Doo said, all these driveby, quick stab and ribbing posts serve no purpose, it's like people are personally insulted that you are giving a breakdown in a tech thread. I think the persecution complex angle is a bit unsightly tbh. It says a lot about persons really.
Lol I'm not personally insulted, you might've mistaken me for someone else. I just find it absolutely fascinating how someone would bother to say a whole lot of this:

Moving on, yes. The way T10 propped the feature, this was not the expectation frankly. This is how the whole argument was raised with Sinnergy tbh. Some devs and PR do have a way of sweetening some words and features into the consciousness of the gaming public. It is only when breakdowns happen you see the real quality under the hood. I was only trying to impress upon him, that using the PR bulletpoints does not always indicate that it's a new feature at play or that features are as exponentially improved or impressive as being touted.....
... in direct reply to what I thought about the 3D puddles from a technical perspective. You'd rather go into the politics of things; who's the fanboy now? lol

Woah!, you're all about assumptions aren't you....I have confirmed for myself that the shadows are solid enough from the players perspective. As for how dynamic the headlights are in Forza 6, I'm not convinced that's the case, you listed that not me. I even gave you my impressions on the headlights from the front-cam, they looked a bit static to me from that perspective. Things can't be that hazy for you surely....

Also please bare in mind, that night racing and even wet racing is prebaked in F6, it's either on or off, there's nothing dynamic about these features.
Ahhhhh ok. At this point its pretty clear to me that you have a strangely strict definition of the word dynamic. That's ok, let's broaden it a bit shall we. Dynamic lighting often means something that's calculated in real-time, as opposed to static lightmaps the game uses for the environment. So yes, while the track lighting is prebaked, the cars' headlights aren't. They're basically light sources that move, illuminating cars, casting specular highlights/bloom on appropriate surfaces (like cones, matte carbon fibre materials of the opponent cars ahead, etc. Do you notice these stuff? I bet not. But it's ok). Thus they are by their very nature, dynamic.

Sure, you have said the shadows are solid...decent. But you're still avoiding the original topic at hand. Do you or do you not think having dynamic lighting, or any other new visual features they've introduced for that matter, incur some performance penalty? Just a simple answer will do :)

But of the course the people who have forza or xbox avatars are excluded from an allegiance

Nope they are not. I'm just offering a possible reason why people would jump on certain people. Platform allegiance thing bothers them, not me. Lol
 
Rain moves up/down the car/windows dependant on speed and side to side on cornering, at least on the PC it does.

Forza's windshield rain effects run at 30fps along with the mirrors.

I feel dynamic weather at 60fps probably could be done on the console but its more a question of time/resources and how much might need to be sacrificed in other areas visually.

Its also a game design choice by the guys at turn10 as things like that effect how the races pan out. Dan has hinted at such previously.

It has to be said however that what we have at the moment is more than serviceable (day/rain look good imo, night could be better) and runs at a solid frame rate.

Only during races. They run at 60Fps during time attack/rivals mode.
 
Only during races. They run at 60Fps during time attack/rivals mode.

Hmm that's pretty neat. One thing I noticed about the droplets on the windshield is that the ones sliding about "pick up" other droplets along the way and leave empty trails. Neat little touch.
 
One of the races, dashboard view, rear view mirror looked like it was running about 15 fps to me. Its been a few days since i played it and it might just have been my eyes as i was very tired at the time as i had just got back off holiday.
 
I think 1080 is a waste in a racing game, at least during a race where motion resolution of our displays is going to drag it down anyway. Drive Club might as well be 600p with as much blur it uses to drive the clearity down.
 
Top Bottom