Support NeoGAF

[Dekajelly]

Have you even ever played GT3 in the "simulation steering" mode? I'm willing to bet no, even though you'll claim you did.

Yep, also turn off TCS, ASM and use simulation tyres with a high powered car.

 

[Zaptruder]

In response to Modus' original assertations that there are no blockiness in that picture, you can see 'blockiness' at the top left part of the rear windscreen, along the rear wheel well, along with a few other bits if you study the picture hard enough....

but those problems pale in comparison to the lack of bump mapping on the panel lines; they all looked very washed out, unlike proper lines... more like paint. or slight ridges on a model car.

 

[Zaptruder]

Yep, also turn off TCS, ASM and use simulation tyres with a high powered car.

Aren't those simulation tyres just road tyres? As in, something you wouldn't use on a high powered car?

 

[gmoran]

I'm not trying to start a flame here, but how does it compare to GT3/GT4? I still play GT3 to this day, and all I've read about the game is really impressive - it's got some features I wish ended up in the GT series (multiple choices for engine swaps, car damage, etc) and looks near as good as GT4*

*I don't want to turn this thread into a graphics arguement. graphics are important to me, but not as important as the gameplay. even if I feel the graphics aren't as good, they are way better than average and still look great*

So, gameplay-wise, how is it? It sounds like mad fun and I can forgive a few small graphical/sound details if it's a blast to play.

GT3 is IMO a driving SIM, but not a racing SIM, if that makes sense. Now we've got that out the way, GT3's driving model is amazing, there are probably PC racers out there that pip it, but it is still ace. Of course a lot of people don't realise how good GT3 is because they don't have a logitech wheel, and they don't do the right setup. Me and my little bro were messing around last week, going from driving the formula one car to a slightly modded Toyota MR2 - it's just ace.

So the problem Forza has is it's 30FPS. So the maximum amount of time in which you can react to something on screen is a 30th sec; which is huge when you are travelling at 200MPH (I believe it 5 feet difference between 30fps and 60fps at 200mph): racing drivers have to make decisions in 120th's sec. I suspect Forza is sampling for the physics model at a greater rate then they are rendering; but even so the eye/reaction/physics model sample is locked at 30, and that's half as detailed as GT3. Given the technology Forza is running on its not good enough, especially when I guess the decision was made merely to trump GT4 graphically. Other than that the current lack of a wheel comparable to the Driving Force Pro is also a major setback. The Pro might be £100, but the differrence it has on gameplay is amazing.

 

[Fixed2BeBroken]

And now you're a stealth troll, but everyone can see through it.
.

rofl....stealth troll?

wtf....

solid snake/sam fisher trolls?

lol

 

[chespace]

jesus, you guys.

just what is the problem here. if you own an xbox, and if you like GT-style racers, you're really going to love this shit. why must it be one or the other?

i have to agree with m0dus at any rate. forza will never "topple" GT4, but christ, does that matter? the fact that we'll have a game that handles other areas better suddenly means nothing because it's all about xbox versus ps2? fuck that.

here's what forza does that GT4 doesn't:

+ Online play, downloadable content
+ A ton of aftermarket parts that affect both appearance and performance
+ Vinyl editor
+ Damage modeling
+ AI training (kinda like the AI training in VF4)
+ A hardcore simulation comparable to PC racing engines like GPL

the game is CLEARLY pushing the console sim genre. you can STILL PLAY GT4 this winter. so what's the problem?

 

[Ranger X]

More view points for driving, car flipping and good collision engine, best damage engine except Burnout, 60 fps and most of things you mentionned that you want inthe games we are speaking in this thread = TOCA Race Driver 2.

shut up and come play.

 

[hgplayer1]

jesus, you guys.

just what is the problem here. if you own an xbox, and if you like GT-style racers, you're really going to love this shit. why must it be one or the other?

i have to agree with m0dus at any rate. forza will never "topple" GT4, but christ, does that matter? the fact that we'll have a game that handles other areas better suddenly means nothing because it's all about xbox versus ps2? fuck that.

here's what forza does that GT4 doesn't:

+ Online play, downloadable content
+ A ton of aftermarket parts that affect both appearance and performance
+ Vinyl editor
+ Damage modeling
+ AI training (kinda like the AI training in VF4)
+ A hardcore simulation comparable to PC racing engines like GPL

the game is CLEARLY pushing the console sim genre. you can STILL PLAY GT4 this winter. so what's the problem?

the problem is anytime someone says something along the lines of "wow now those screens look photorealistic" or "great lighting" or "nice vids" about a racing/driving game.....for some reason at least one person will be compelled to claim Gran Turismo the best at doing whatever the other game is trying to do. the sad thing is it really is like comparing apples and oranges. its not like youre comparing two football games that have the same teams, players, and rules. in my opinion once you see that Forza has a feature like aftermarket parts that you can add to almost any car in the game, all comparisons except for specific car models should be thrown right out the window. hell PGR2 even got the "GT is better" treatment and those two games are nothing like each other. to be fair it works both ways. someone sees a new game come out and they start with the "GT KILLER!" BS.

 

[gmoran]

also, gmoran wrote:


The developers have stated a number of times that they are polling the controller at 180 fps for greater accuracy, so you can rest easy, that issue is nil.

That issue is not nil. You react to what you see: the eye/reaction/physics model sample is locked at 30.

Forza looks to be a good attempt by MS to give their XB customers an equivalent to GT; and they are doing quite a bit that GT doesn't. But 30 FPS is IMO a diservice for this type of game, where physics is equally as important as graphics.

 

[thorns]

More view points for driving, car flipping and good collision engine, best damage engine except Burnout, 60 fps and most of things you mentionned that you want inthe games we are speaking in this thread = TOCA Race Driver 2.

shut up and come play.

TOCA is pretty ok, but would have been better if you couldn't cut through half the track on half the tracks (big problem when racing online) and the cars actually felt like they had some weight to them..

 

[Zaptruder]

If anything, FM will just be a good leadup to it's sequel on the Xenon. It does need a different name tho...

 

[Gek54]

TOCA2 is just about the best overall racing game this year. For $29 it should be a must own for every racing fan. Xbox version includes CMR2005, a total steel.

30fps was forgivable for RBR but not in PGR2, we will see in Forza.

 

[gmoran]

It's one thing to say 30fps is a disservice to the game--I agree with you there--but claiming it won't play as well at 30fps is outright ridiculous.

I didn't say it wouldn't play as well. But the frame rate does have a direct impact on the physics model, and the players interaction with that. Everything else being equal, the physics model in a game running at 60FPS will have twice as much data, and provide twice as much visual feedback, as one running at 30 FPS. Polling the controller at 180/sec does not make up for that.

 

[gmoran]

I'd still have to disaggree. I think your reaction is based on timing, NOT how many frames you happen to be seeing. 5 seconds at 30fps is exactly the same length of time as 5 seconds at 60, 80, and 100.

The difference is that at 60FPS you see twice as much information

You keep forgetting, the framerate does not impact the physics model--the physics model is a simulation calculated by the CPU that behaves EXACTLY the same no matter what the framerate is

I think for an interactive game it very much does. How much do you sample the 3D world space: how often do you attempt to model the world space and then calculate the effects of physics, and input, to calculate the next scene. This is based on what you believe you can do between frames. Now transforming that world to screen space, then rendering. Of course you can model your world more often than you transform to screen space and render, but we are not aware that that is what is happening in Forza?

It has long been established that our minds interperate visual schema as normal movement at around 24 frames per second, which is the framerate used for cartoons, movies and television. 30 is easily as effective. 60 WOULD be smoother, but then, at this point you're talking about timings so minute, they are limited physically by the speed your own reflexes (of neural conduction itself! bwah!), and are thus, I think, are negligable.

I think this is the nub of the problem: @ 24FPS, our brain is smoothing the separate images together to give the impression of change or movement rather than separate images; however that does not mean we can't resolve information presented at greater than 24FPS, we can. As I said in an earlier post, formula 1 drivers have to be able to resolve information in 120th of a second. We are certainly capable of reacting to visual stimuli at greater than 24FPS.

So I think you are making two assumptions that are wrong: one is that we cant see details at greater than 24FPS; and the second is that transform and rendering are totally independent of the physics model.

Finally my original response was in response to a question asking for comparisons between forza and GT series; I think they should have gone for 60FPS, but I don't want to get too stuck on that, they've made that decision lets see how it turns out as a game.

 

[Zaptruder]

 

[Lazy8s]

gmoran:

The difference is that at 60FPS you see twice as much information

You also see twice as much up-to-date information using native proscan support when not having/halving to field render.

 

[dark10x]

gmoran:

You also see twice as much up-to-date information using native proscan support when not having/halving to field render.

A scaler helps quite a bit in a situation such as that...

Despite the output from the source, the end result is a progressive image (flaws being a seemingly lower resolution than native progressive images). At the very least, many of the flaws of a field rendered output are removed when run through a scaler. The better the scaler in use, the better the results. HDTVs all have internal scalers, but you can purchase higher quality external models as well as use PC based software.

I've already tested the PC method and the results are excellent.

Input a system into your PC, use a piece of software such as D-Scaler, and then output that image back to your TV via 1080i. The end result is very impressive.

For example;

Dscaler running VF4:E (input via S-video)...

When output back to an HDTV set, the result is an image that is easily on par with any native progressive scan enabled title. There are flaws, of course, but that's to be expected. I mean, it obviously is not an optimal image...but it helps quite a bit. If you have not tried it out, you should really take a look. The results are suprising...

 

[Lazy8s]

Adding the computing power of a TV/scaler for post processing can definitely lead to a better picture presentation (even for sources already in native proscan), but it's never optimal, as said, since the scaler has to algorithmically predict what the missing parts of the image should look like from outdated frame information.

 

[dark10x]

Adding the computing power of a TV/scaler for post processing can definitely lead to a better picture presentation (even for sources already in native proscan), but it's never optimal, as said, since the scaler has to algorithmically predict what the missing parts of the image should look like from outdated frame information.

Naturally, but it can transform a decidedly low quality image (such as RRV) into something that approaches typical progressive scan output for current days consoles. It obviously doesn't quite reach it, but it ends up looking much nicer...

For games that are field rendered, it is the absolute best shot you have...

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Can I get some credit for that VF4 shot?


:lol

 

[Ranger X]

TOCA is pretty ok, but would have been better if you couldn't cut through half the track on half the tracks (big problem when racing online) and the cars actually felt like they had some weight to them..

Actually if you play the PS2 version on "Pro simulation mode", you'll feel the cars are god damned strong. Cockpit view give also a very good feeling. TOCA is not about chase view.
As for the cut through, don't play with retarded. It's not a flaw of the game itself.

 

[thorns]

Well I only have the Xbox version and that doesn't have a "pro-sim mode" at all. In xbox version the physics are very unconvincing, they're even behind a game like PGR2 in terms of weight transfer etc.

About track cutting, I guess you're right but almost everybody I played with tended to cut tracks, either blatantly or when "nobody is looking".

 

[Ranger X]

Pro-sim is PS2 exclusive. As the Catalunya track too.
The weight transfer is well done in both version. If you brake and then turn when your wait is in your front tires you'll grip ALOT more with the ground.
What view do you use when playing? I'm always cockpit view and everything feels sooo right.

 

[DCX]

Looks fantastic!! It seems to play it too...i really hope this game silences the 30 VS 60 debate.

DCX

 

[ravingloon]

Looks fantastic!! It seems to play it too...i really hope this game silences the 30 VS 60 debate.

DCX

It'll never silence it, because it exits. Now I'll admit I had trouble looking at the video and seeing what the framerate was, but put a controller in my had and a live television in front of me, and I can tell the difference in a heartbeat.

 

[dark10x]

Looks fantastic!! It seems to play it too...i really hope this game silences the 30 VS 60 debate.

DCX

How would it slience the debate? It's not like this will make the problem go away...

The difference is so incredibly obvious.

 

[Gek54]

The more information you recieve from being able to see twice as much information in the same amount of time increases your ability to make more accurate responses to what is on the screen. Yes its nice that the physics and controls operate at a faster rate but can we really compare that to anything to know just how important it is to the game? Do we know what the physics and controls of other games operate? More information means you are more informed, the more informed you are more likely you are to make better decisions...ever heard this before?..aplies to graphics too.

Saying 30fps doesnt bother you only means you are comfortable with less information to make your decisions. Other may have higher standards. Why do you feel you need to lower other peoples standards?

 

[DaCocoBrova]

IMO:

30fps = Looks like a videogame

60fps = Looks like video








*yes, I know video is ~24 fps.*

 

[Ranger X]

I'm sure 60 fps would not give you a definite advantage over me playing the same game at 30 but you have to know something: Logically it controls better at 60 fps. (if the game input controls at each frame that is).

 

[FightyF]

30fps was forgivable for RBR but not in PGR2, we will see in Forza.

So 30 fps is ok for a hardcore sim, but NOT ok for an arcade racer?

Am I reading this right? Is that a typo? Maybe you are referring to how the end product looked with the framerate?

When a professional racer can race the same track in real life and then race that same track, with the same car, in GT3 and get nearly the same results...it pretty much throws everybody's claims of the GT series not being a sim into the shitter.

I agree. But it has to be said that in the category of "Sim Racer", GT4 seems to be moving towards the end of the "most realistic racer" list, and FM looks to be notched up a few places, being a more realistic offering than GT4.

As a GT fan I'm happy with competition. This means PD will work on a GT5 where cars can actually flip, can suffer from damage that will affect vehicle performance, and will feature more customization. That is, if they accept FM's challenge. Who knows? When GT4 sells millions, and FM barely scratches 100,000, PD may not even bother trying to improve their game as much as they should. Ie. EA's NHL series.

 

[Gek54]

Gek, tune down your fanboy gland a bit, you're starting to say strange things.

Its got nothing to do with being a fan of any game unless you are saying I am a 60fps fanboy.

60fps is an advantage becuase it gives you a better sense of how your car is reacting to your input. You get twice the amount of feedback, if you make a mistake you will see your mistake quicker and with more frames it is easier for you to see exactly how your car is moving so that you can more accurately correct your mistake. If what you are trying to describe is true then playing a game at 5 fps shouldnt affect how well you will be able to take a corner. I gaurantee you that it will be all over the track. Try running around your house as fast as you can while blinking your eyes as fast as you can. Its the same concept

So 30 fps is ok for a hardcore sim, but NOT ok for an arcade racer?

Am I reading this right? Is that a typo? Maybe you are referring to how the end product looked with the framerate?

Only becuase RBR is phenominaly good sim and nothing out there provides such a driving experience. Playing PGR2 at 30fps felt like I was going back to the PSX to play GT2 right after playing GT3. If I feel like playing a PGR game then the original will get picked over 2 any day.

 

[mathism]

I'm with m0dus. You may acquire twice as much information, but can you interpret and react to that information quickly enough for it to really make a difference? I'd have a hard time believing so...

 

[Gek54]

And there are some people who cant tell digital video and sound from analog. Why should we care about HDTV or Optical cables for our recievers? Some people cant tell the difference between 3 or 4 degrees in temperature while others are much more sensitive.

Reflexes and Reactions are based only on anticipation? Um....you might want to rethink that.

The fact is that I can better react to 60fps than I can to 30fps. It is a drastic difference and most people who are sensitive to the difference in 60fps and 30fps will agree. If you dont notice then be happy that it doesnt bother you.

By the way, I am pretty good at fighters. I have not met anyone who can beat me at one. I really dont find them that much fun. Its always just block, counter and repeat. You wont find a fighting game fan who wont tell you that 60fps is crucial to good fighting.

 

[PG2G]

Well, I do agree that 60 fps is better, I just don't know if its really as big a deal as people like to make it out to be. I think it approaches the point of diminishing returns, from the point of precise controls at least.

BTW mathism -> me. I've been trying to get my account verified for like the last 4 months and made another in the process, just in case it got lost in the shuffle. What do you know, they were both activated today.


For what it's worth

"Reactions are different from reflexes in that they are voluntary responses to a stimulus from the environment. Reactions involve "higher pathways" to the brain to organize and integrate the response to a stimuli. They therefore take more time to complete than a reflex. On average, humans have a reaction time of 0.25 seconds to a visual stimulus, 0.17 for a audio stimulus, and 0.15 seconds for a touch stimulus (2).

Reaction times vary from individual to individual. Because of the higher degree of neural processing, reaction times can be influenced by a variety of factors. Reaction times can decrease with practice, oftentimes athletes have faster reaction times than non-athletes. Sleepiness, emotional upset, or consumption of alcohol can impact upon reaction times as well"

http://csm.jmu.edu/biology/danie2jc/reflex.htm

 

[AlphaSnake]

m0dus is such a character. And by character I mean complete fucking douchebag when it comes down to these wonderful threads. :lol

 

[FightyF]

Only becuase RBR is phenominaly good sim and nothing out there provides such a driving experience

Hmm...I have a feeling you'll love FM.

 

[AlphaSnake]

As opposed to, what, being a brainless sack of shit, such as yourself? :lol What, run out of masturbation threads in the OT forum to post in?

Pay Alphasnake no mind--personality issues. Big words tend to frighten and intimidate him, and the boy lashes out. I don't talk like I was raised in a slum in Queens, so he has to get pissy whenever I use those long, long sentences. He finds it threatening, I think :lol

I write for a living. I can write circles around you and your long sentences. And I find your use of the English language offensive. Stop speaking it. In fact, I find you offensive all together. You're a weird little creature.

Edit: A cop out's edit. Capital job!

As opposed to, what, being a brainless fuck, such as yourself? or are you just upset by the fact I don't got shit to say to you?

Good times.

 

[FightyF]

Alphasnake you can write all you want but you know jack shit about stuff like, well, graphics. You've made some really odd comments and they never made sense. Everything went over your head in the last few FM threads.

I agree with Gek, the faster refresh rate will lend to a better chance at reacting to what you see. This is yet another reason why you want to have 60 fps control in a racing game.

When moving at high speeds, 1/30th of a second makes a difference. Now, it's only a matter of a couple of metres, but still, there is a noticable difference.

 

[n3mo_toad]

I write for a living. I can write circles around you and your long sentences. And I find your use of the English language offensive. Stop speaking it. In fact, I find you offensive all together. You're a weird little creature.

Edit: A cop out's edit. Capital job!

Good times.

Man, what are you talking about? You're the biggest asshole I've seen in this forum so far.
And you're totally trolling this thread.

 

[FightyF]

You are right, I'm sorry for not being clear.

I was referring to what we see. It affects what we see, and our reaction (which takes some time after seeing it) will be delayed by that much.

To me it's not that big of an issue, but I would have preferred 60 fps.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Fight For Freedom: Making bullshit statements has been your forte` not mine. That said, I seem to have struck a few more nerves. Until next time*, fellow forum members. May the framerate be with you.

*A GT4 thread.

 

[rastex]

Well just think of a racing game. The track is stationary and you'll be able to see the track in front of you for multiple seconds, so reaction time isn't important there. The other thing then is when you're racing against people, except there your relative speeds will be very close and so it's like you're not going as fast, thus the impact of 30 vs 60 is negligible.

Really, if you want to talk about gameplay, the biggest bonus for GT4 is the FF Wheel. Looking at that quote posted above, response to tactile feedback is almost twice as fast as visual. That's probably why a lot of people say playing GT with a force feedback wheel is the only way to play, it just feels "right". If a FF Wheel in the same league as the GT one isn't released for Forza, I'd see that as the biggest knock against the game.

 

[AlphaSnake]

Translation: "Fuck, they're on to me! Shit, time to bail!"


:lol Yeah. You won't be missed.

You keep thinking that.

 

[AlphaSnake]

yeah. we'll know if you're missed when someone starts wondering what happened to the smell. -The other regular you just dissed, or the n00b that called you an asshole :lol

:lol

 

[Zaptruder]

For the most part, Modus has been pretty good about fending off the trolls in this thread.

Although your weak deflection of my comment earned you no points with me!

j/k.

Really, the retards that keep saying 1/60th of a second makes a difference in reaction time or whatever really need to get their facts straight.

What MIGHT be happening is that by providing a smoother visual motion, the player is less distracted, more immersed and better able to perform.

But really, the difference between 30 and 60 FPS is mainly a visual one. On one hand you can have more details with 30 fps... but on the other hand, 60 fps may help enhance the visual immersiveness, beyond what the extra graphical trims of a 30 fps can afford.

But once you get down to it... the most important difference between the two titles in terms of immersiveness and been a driving experience, is the force feedback wheel.

 

[Mike Works]

it's like trying to tame reality by gambling with your courage.

hahahahahaha

 

[demon]

You are all nerds.

 

[n3mo_toad]

You are all nerds.

... and proud of it!

 

[Gek54]

Hmm, PG2G has provided some interesting info. And you're correct, I've been misusing the term "reflex," as that implies a spinal arc (like a patellar knee-tap, or achilles reflex). Reaction time is much more proper terminology. Now, let's see: Human reaction time ranges from between .15 to.25 seconds, as is provided by the info he presented. The most highly trained athletes, at best guess, could probably be found around .10 seconds. Reaction time within 1/60th of a second would be, oh, about .0167 seconds-- as in more than TEN times as fast as what is generally accepted as the upper strata for reaction time for most of the human race.

I knew the minute he posted those figures you would take that direction. Your perception of the importance of framerate is quite shallow. I never implied that I could react to one frame that flashes the screen in .0167 of a second. It is that at 60fps I can see an object change from point A to B to C to D to E to F while at 30fps you will only see an object move from A to C to E in the same about of time. At 30fps you missed B, D and F. When you are trying to shave seconds, BDF will help to accurately 'anticipate' a corner. 60fps takes the guess work out of 30fps. No more needing to anticipate what will happen in between frames, allowing you to better concentrate on what you are doing.

What is negligible is anything above 60, I would argue 75 since can see an improvement but after that I personaly can tell 120fps from 75fps.

 

[gmoran]

60 FPS means better graphics, and a smoother experience. But when it comes to your own reaction to visual stimuli, it really means little in the grand scheme of things, when compared to 30 FPS, if the controller input is firing at the SAME rate..

I really don't know where to go with this. This is such a stupid issue to get stuck on. I mean if you were contending that to you it makes no difference, then fine your opinion: your eyes, brain, reactions, what not. Or if that gameplay and implementation could overcome this, then I'd concede you might be right, the finished game will show; I mean I said all things being equal for this reason. But its the condescendibng way you keep explaining why the difference between 60FPS and 30FPS makes no difference to reaction time. Well, you are flat wrong, it does.

ABOVE 24, your brain has reached its threshold of what it needs to process what is happening in realtime, and what it is realistically capable of reacting to. At that point, your brain is not taking great strides in filling the gaps--IE, you're *not* missing B,D, and F. A through F are simply moving at a rate that is percieved as less smooth. you're not missing any of the necessary information to realize, for example, that you just scraped a railing, or your rear just shifted left, or someone is about to attempt to pass you at the next turn. That's the nature of a threshold--its all or nothing. Period.

This is rubbish. If you can perceive that 30FPS is less smooth than 60FPS, then obviously your brain is processing the extra information [Note to Modus: do you get this yet? despite persistence of vision your brain can detect the extra information; hello, hello; is there anybody there]. So we know we can see the extra information. So the next question is can we react to it? And the answer is yes, nerve impulses travel at about 100m/s. We tend to think a second is an almost instantaneous packet of time, but in reality we can experience and react to a lot of information in a second, especially if a lot is happening. More than this, there are lots of examples of human behaviour which would be impossible if we were not able to react at faster than 24 FPS, including visual data: a formula 1 driver is the example I've mentioned before.

If you are trying to insinuate that you can judge, interprate, and respond to a stimulus occurring in 1/60th of a second, then my friend, that's some mighty hot air you're blowing

You're wrong, people certainly can.

But the real absurdity of this, is that Forza's developers are polling at 180/sec; I mean why bother: you've proven that we cant resolve events at greater than 24/sec? The reason is that we can do a lot (move, react, remember) even at rates higher than 100/sec. A perfect example is a steering wheel: how much can it move in a second, and how much awareness do you have of its movement (the answer is you are aware of its position in space and time to incredible detail, and that it can move a hell of a lot).

I'd suggest you do some reading on the subject.

This thread isn't about the game anymore; I'm sure Forza will be fine. Its about not having someone condescend to tell me that black is white.

For the most part, Modus has been pretty good about fending off the trolls in this thread.

This thread was uneccesary, Modus could have expressed his opinion in a different way, and it would never have sparked off: but he has been consistently patronising.

Really, the retards that keep saying 1/60th of a second makes a difference in reaction time or whatever really need to get their facts straight.

Oh sorry, yeah you are right, human reactions are certainly locked at 24FPS. I agree. How stoopid of me.