-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Next-gen Racing Graphics Face-off | (Next-gen means current-gen)
- Thread starter Gestault
- Start date
Glomby
Member
I've never considered DC to feel that smooth. It feels perfectly fine for a 30fps racer but Horizon 2s motion blur solution makes it feel noticeably smoother.
I started playing DC when it came out and then Horizon 2 when it came out and this has always been the most noticeable difference for me (besides graphics). H2 feels quiet a bit smoother.
Even in real life photography it is said that the best time to take pictures is early in the morning or late afternoon. At noon is a no no.
Summer Haze
Banned
Am I the only one that interpreted that comment correctly? They're saying that DC is realistic in the sense that it mirrors dull lighting conditions that also occur in reality, not that the game does looks the same as real life.
Some of you guys need to ease up on the defensive before reading people's comments.
My bad. Your reply threw me off for a second.
Summer Haze
Banned
You're proving his point and you don't even know it. Lol.
Life can look dull sometimes depending on the lighting. This happens in DC too because of it's dynamic lighting engine. But mimicking realistic behavior != looking real.
Sorry, I was a little bitch saying that no other racing games get there, because as I've said above, I haven't played Horizon 2 on the Xbone, nor have I played all other 30 FPS racers. Sorry about that. It was a stupid thing to say.
TheAdmiester
Member
I get why racing games have to have motion blur, but outside of photomode, Driveclub's looks really messy. Instead of looking "streaky" it looks "smeary", killing off detail on the road instead of stretching it. There's also a lot of dithering in it which is very noticeable on wet roads.
I'm sorry but if that's true, you should probably check your eyes.
GoldenCrow
Member
That appears to be more of an AA thing rather than motion blur as it seems to have the ringing effect similar to the mitchell-netravali vray solution that gives a softer image and also produces the dithering. In terms of trying to produce a realistic image you usually want to have slightly softer edges rather than sharp edge, again this suits motion more than stills but it s a fine line and not an easy thing to get right and highly subjective as there is no one perfect solution.
Both Forza Horizon games are massively smoother than PGR4 is. I played PGR4 and FH1 back to back not too long ago, and going to PGR4 after it is actually rather jarring. It's not even holding a steady framerate.
DC despite being locked also doesn't appear as smooth as either Horizon either in my experience. Apparently you can turn off the judder, so I'll give that a try next time I play it, but I'd imagine FH2's cross-country races should have that effect amplified, and it doesn't seem to.
MilkyJoe
Member
Best experience on any game so far this gen.
It just never has done to me, maybe my eyesight is too perfect and my brain doesn't fill in between frames
Forget the lighting...I look at the trees, the textures, those types of things. At least that's what catches my eye...not the lighting.
Your comment about lighting is true though. Real life can look dull. That's why the flatter mid-day Forza races are also accurate. Lighting should be flat when sunlight is overhead.
At its best Driveclub can look astounding.
At its best Forza 6 looks incredible.
Both games can also look like crap...absolute crap..lol. Especially if you look for a good shot to show that.
If we take the time to look at how great a game can look though...see my previous post...
Forza 6 has texture resolutions and track side detail well beyond most sim games/racers. The game has infields with hundreds of cars, smoke rolling off of grills across the track, dust blowing in the wind. All of these are part of the "graphics".
Some things have to be seen on a big screen and played to appreciate them. I say that for both games.
Driveclub in motion is insane looking more often than not. Forza 6 is incredible looking in motion and sitting still more often than not.
Both games are gorgeous for what they do. I have a hard time putting either one down. The situation or "graphic" item swings either way depending on the subject.
I find the lighting in DC to be better than F6...however things like mountains, snow, and other textures look far muddier to me next to something like F6. Rocks and many other objects have an almost clay like appearance if you give a good look at them.
Weather and lighting, DC wins.
Texture quality of landscapes, F6 wins. (minus the trees...DC wins on trees 9/10 of the time. That shot above is like the one time F6 comes close..haha)
So yeah IMO, DC loses the graphics debate in some areas and F6 loses the graphics debate in some areas.
Hmm, yeah, PGR4 has some frame dips here and there indeed, but its motion blur is much stronger, mate. Aren't you getting confused by the camera shake?
I actually despise them.
Definitely not. I can buy that as a reason for DC appearing less smooth, but not PGR, which has movement very comparable to FH1 on road, and less than FH1 off-road. It may have more pronounced motion-blur, but that motion blur is apparently not as high quality. Either that, or the framerate is just worse than I'm assuming, and the motion blur is failing to compensate for it.
Summer Haze
Banned
I agree. Just goes to show what a huge difference lighting can make.
Lion Heart
Banned
DC is almost a gen ahead, let's be real. I have no doubt gt7 will surpass DC though in overall look, even if they don't match the weather and density of DCs levels. Stuff like car models and lighting for sure.
Melfice7
Member
Set camera shake to 0, that's probably what youre feeling is wrong
I also recommend turning off that (I don't know the name in English) "look into corner" option. It gets more driveable if you want to use the internal cam.
MilkyJoe
Member
Reality sometimes is like this in japan you know?
I don't think he means the colours of the flowers.
I think people forget that the predecessor to this thread, GT vs. Forza was created exactly to eliminate any comparisons from the OTs of either game and the drivby PC master race posts in both.
The point is to come here, post what you think is best or worst in your game of choice, and help showcase what each game does best. Whether it's on an Atari or a two Titan PC that gets 2fps while downsampling your shots of pcars or whatever game you choose.
It's also a good place to compare the accuracy/representation of tracks or cars, or environments and effects from game to game, as we all know some devs get things spectacularly wrong, and others get things obsessively right, and some are wildly inconsistent, reaching both extremes in the same game.
Do most of these games shine in some parts and falter in others? Of course.
Andy Believes
Banned
I think DC is miles ahead in the light department, not just weather. I have been on some of the roads in India and Scotland and the light and shadow is perfect to point of them becoming boring.
It is not glamour light (which is warm and can have tones of gold - aka low color temperature in photography terms) like in FH2. The lighting in FH2 mimics the warm tones of late evenings and early mornings even when it is noon like as if someone were using a warming filter on their camera lens.
DC keeps it stark and real. A true achievement for DC where early mornings and late evenings can be as stunning as in like real life, while noon and late mornings can look bland/boring/bad due to the unflattering overhead cold lighting (bluish light - aka high color temperature) which is again same as real life.
It is not glamour light (which is warm and can have tones of gold - aka low color temperature in photography terms) like in FH2. The lighting in FH2 mimics the warm tones of late evenings and early mornings even when it is noon like as if someone were using a warming filter on their camera lens.
DC keeps it stark and real. A true achievement for DC where early mornings and late evenings can be as stunning as in like real life, while noon and late mornings can look bland/boring/bad due to the unflattering overhead cold lighting (bluish light - aka high color temperature) which is again same as real life.
TheAdmiester
Member
It's the one true successor to PGR.
He doesn't have an Xbox One.
There is no one true successor to PGR. Both Horizon and Driveclub take half of the equation each, but neither is very close as a whole.
FH1 was far more PGR-esque than FH2 though imo.
It looks like the recipe for an unflattering shot in a racing game is:
Use a chase, or external camera.
Set up the shot so the shadows are barely visible ... either with the sun directly overhead or behind the camera, or at night where the lighting is particularly undramatic.
Ideally, work some damage in.
Use a chase, or external camera.
Set up the shot so the shadows are barely visible ... either with the sun directly overhead or behind the camera, or at night where the lighting is particularly undramatic.
Ideally, work some damage in.
nkarafo
Member
No, the stutter is due to 30 fps, like every single 30 fps game that moves fast enough to notice it. I didn't say anything about the camera shake effect.
Reality sometimes is like this in japan you know?
You mean you can't tell which pic looks real and which isn't?
I mean i get it, DC can look like real sometimes but jesus christ guys
This thread has become a goddamn trainwreck ever since FM6 came out.
I see this thread as a technical thread concerning the visuals of racing games. Nothing more. DriveClub had the benefit of aiming for 30FPS so they could put as much jaw-dropping tech in as they did. It's no mystery why DC is the darling of this entire thread, it looks that good. The completely dynamic lighting engine that is, without a doubt, one of the best in the industry right now, is part of that. Extremely detailed environments, dynamic TOD and weather, volumetric clouds, the best weather effects and reflections ever seen in a racer. All of this goes directly into a 'graphics face-off' and is relevant to this thread. And sorry, but Forza does not even come close to touching DC in that department. Not at this point in time.
And that's okay. Because T10 did not create Forza 6 to be a graphical tour-de-force blowing everyone's mind over the incredible reflections they have on their windshield wipers. No, they chose a completely different goal. Realistic physics, lots of cars and an unyielding, rock-solid 60 frames per second. They nailed every one of these and the fans love them for it. But it isn't the graphical masterpiece apparently some people wanted it to be.
Don't get all pouty putting in pot-shots at posters and games because they went in different directions. Driveclub has great gameplay and no it's not a unplayable slideshow.
I also think that yes, we know Forza 6 runs at 60FPS. Nobody is misrepresenting anything or trying to confuse anyone. It's a fact and an argument for why F6 looks the way it does. Don't use it as a soapbox to present everyone with your opinion on which is the better racer. Go post in that games' respective OT if you want to do that.
I see this thread as a technical thread concerning the visuals of racing games. Nothing more. DriveClub had the benefit of aiming for 30FPS so they could put as much jaw-dropping tech in as they did. It's no mystery why DC is the darling of this entire thread, it looks that good. The completely dynamic lighting engine that is, without a doubt, one of the best in the industry right now, is part of that. Extremely detailed environments, dynamic TOD and weather, volumetric clouds, the best weather effects and reflections ever seen in a racer. All of this goes directly into a 'graphics face-off' and is relevant to this thread. And sorry, but Forza does not even come close to touching DC in that department. Not at this point in time.
And that's okay. Because T10 did not create Forza 6 to be a graphical tour-de-force blowing everyone's mind over the incredible reflections they have on their windshield wipers. No, they chose a completely different goal. Realistic physics, lots of cars and an unyielding, rock-solid 60 frames per second. They nailed every one of these and the fans love them for it. But it isn't the graphical masterpiece apparently some people wanted it to be.
Don't get all pouty putting in pot-shots at posters and games because they went in different directions. Driveclub has great gameplay and no it's not a unplayable slideshow.
I also think that yes, we know Forza 6 runs at 60FPS. Nobody is misrepresenting anything or trying to confuse anyone. It's a fact and an argument for why F6 looks the way it does. Don't use it as a soapbox to present everyone with your opinion on which is the better racer. Go post in that games' respective OT if you want to do that.
Well said but it's a graphics thread and if some people's game of choice is not winning, then there's something wrong. We saw this before in GT v. Forza battles. A lot of the same arguments, sometimes the same characters.
Give it another month until F6 newness wears off and we'll be back to normal.
GeordieMark
Member
That's a fair post. I agree with the vast majority of it.
Only point would be that if this thread has limitations to what can and can't be discussed, put it in the fucking OP. That way it is clear as day for everybody. A few select posters can't just decide amongst themselves that "we don't talk about frame-rate here" as not everyone agrees that it shouldn't be a part of a technical graphics debate.
I'll say no more on the issue, other than yes, Driveclub is gorgeous.
drugstore_cowboy
Member
Wiser words quite possibly haven't been spoken very recently.
I know it's a crime, but unfortunately I'm also guilty of being a poor piece of shit. :c
I don't believe I'll have success googling for shots taking at the exact same speed.
Best I can do is to find videos of vehicles going fast. In fact, I've found one on Forza Horizon where the guy goes beyond 400 Km/h with a Bugatti Veyron agains a PGR4 where the player never goes above 300 Km/h. So I'll give you 100 Km/h more on Forza Horizon. Now tell me which one has a stronger motion blur?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI98C9r0V7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfmD4ZN5b9k
So, 1) yes, it is a good thing. 2) changed the side of the "dishonesty" and it didn't changed my mind on the subject. 3) I don't care. As a personal experience, PGR4 felt more smooth to me. I'm not trying to shit on Forza Horizon, a game I effin love and probably enjoyed more than PGR4 (or maybe not. Let's leave it at a tie
). I just expressed my opinion.
^You skipped the best part of the post you took the Forza picture from D:
Me spinning out GHG
Jesus, man, reduce this gif size.
Or at least put a disclaimer that the gif has 40mb
sems4arsenal
Member
Only gripe with DC is Aliasing on liveries, GT6 also had this issue.
Btw Nib, this isn't true. Creating a gif typically helps to hide imperfections with macro details, but also tends to simply remove micro details. So if you have a super low-res texture, it comes across better in a gif because each blocky element of that texture reduces in size and gives the appearance of more detail. However, if the texture has a ton of micro detail (which Forza's do as you can see in pretty much every single one of Shandy's screens) all that tends to happen is they get shrunk to the point where those details becoming impossible to discern, so a detailed road surface starts to look like a simple flat shade of grey, and small blades of grass surrounding the track just look like a flat green texture. Meanwhile games like Driveclub and PGR primarily deal with macro details for their environment, trees, buildings, mountains etc, so they benefit far more from such a comparison.. especially when the actual textures for stuff like the road surfaces in Driveclub aren't the game's strong point.
Now if you gif something like Prague from Forza, then it'll likely benefit in a similar way... but a gif of a racetrack surrounded by a field is pretty much kryptonite.
Similar threads
- Poll