Ok I have just looked at this.
This is a little more impressive, however its a last gen looking game in a lot of ways and probably not as taxing a load compared to dirt 5. We saw there how it can go upto 15 seconds for higher modes and more cars and bigger track etc. But still, its better.
I'd have liked to see a comparison to the last gen version even if this is upgraded to see how fast the fast travel was there.
Anyway...
I'm not sure how seconds work over at Digital Foundry but thats not 2 seconds to me!
Look.
The load starts as the screen goes black at the end of second 6:40 /start of second 6:41. It lasts until the end of second 6:44/6:45.
You can see the loads already started at 6:41 as if I choose the video to start at 6:41 its already a black screen.
So thats closer 4 seconds, not within 2 as claimed. Thats double the time! Maybe someone can use a better method to show this time like
Bo_Hazem
did With a frame counter?
Now was this in 1440p mode, was it the best case scenario, did they load to multiple areas and this was the best of them, does loading into somewhere else take longer? We will see i guess.
But it doesn't inspire much confidence when I see a simple count wrong. Is it incompetence or are they trying and make it seem more favourable? Why show the load on this video when its a favourable number but not on dirt when its much longer? We want to see all the times.
People may say whats it matter a second or two, well let's have the facts presented correctly.