Support NeoGAF

[Hawk269]

Isn't the driving physics and fps CPU bound in some measure? I asked that before a few post above. Btw. DC doesn't have prettier graphics. It has technically more advanced graphics than FM6. Funny how people who defend FM6 constantly ignoring what DC doing in graphical department and try to downplay it.



The same thing.

Well for one, I am not defending Forza as it pertains to visuals alone. On a visual comparison, I think DC looks better. My comment was more on what each game is doing tech wise overall, including graphics, physics, frame rate etc. Regardless if Physics is CPU bound or not, when you are a dev and you don't have the overhead of running a highly demanding physics engine, you can use those CPU resources to help in other areas of the game including making visuals better. As etta said above, no one is downplaying the visuals in DC. You go on like an attack dog to defend DC by saying people are defending Forza, but I don't recall people defending Forza. It just seems you are a little too close to DC and are trying to defend it against something that seems to be in your imagination as no one is defending Forza's visuals over DC's. Again, speaking visuals ONLY.

 

[Conduit]

I don't see what you're trying to get at by repeating this?

Like me, you repeating also same stuff over and over : F6 doing more under the hood with physics, driving physics are beast to emulate etc.

Nintendo also used the words GPGPU... remember that?

Sorry, never heard that Nintedo mentioned this before

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I don't see what you're trying to get at by repeating this?

If anything it proves Forza's case further. CPUs are much, much slower than GPUs. By default, any calculation running on a CPU is more intensive in proportion to available resources. GPUs can bruteforce their way through tasks with small, correctable errors, whereas CPUs are slower and more accurate to my knowledge.

Certain physics are best done on the cpu and others are best done on the gpu .

 

[BiGBoSSMk23]

Im going to stick my neck out here but anyway. I've been playing DC lately, not lots, but seeing some of the shots i see make my jaw hit the floor. When I've played it looks nothing like the shots i see, their has been a few moments when i go yes that looks great, but to be honest their has been more times when i think it looks really bad and generally very average most of the time. I have only played F6 demo and im not saying F6 is better looking than DC at all but it is easier for to me to take terrible pics and make DC look shit than good. IMO

I played the FM6 demo at gamestop recently and wasn't impressed by the graphics. While the framerate is nice everything looked like a flat, jittery, cardboard-y mess by comparison.

Meanwhile, driveclub doesn't look nearly as smooth as the stills people usually post, but when you're playing the game the higher fidelity in everything is apparent.

I really dug the rumble triggers when braking and spinning my tires though...

 

[nib95]

Oh God, here we go...

I'll get some of this out of the way early. 8 GB GDDR5!!! huMA!!!! GPGPU COMPUTE!!!

I guess you're averse to facts then, because that's exactly what they are looking to do...at least in some capacity anyway. I think the difference between the PS4 taking advantage of compute compared to the Xbox One or Wii U, is that the PS4's GPU is a lot more capable in certain aspects of compute, at least based on the specs differences anyway. How that translates in to real world differences remains to be seen.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1107770

So, driving physics and 60fps are more demanding than full Global Illumination, lightning, dynamic weather, dynamic TOD for example?

It'd be impossible to say. Bare in mind, there are PC Sim racers with far more advanced physics than either Forza, Project Cars or GT, and they run perfectly fine on less capable hardware, and have done for years. Most just lack the graphical spectacle, with the exception of Assetto Corsa.

As I said before, I'm not really sure just how taxing rudimentary physics calculations like tyre grip simulation, weight transfer, traction differences etc really are. When I think of advanced physics that would be truly system taxing, I think of stuff like real time damage and body deformation, complex destruction and things of that nature. That's the type of physics I'd argue would be considerably more resource taxing, and is much rarer to find in racing games (is there even a single one that offers these things?), not the kind of physics many Sim racers are doing and have been doing for years. In contrast, comparing all other racers to DriveClub, graphically nothing at present really compares, no matter the hardware in question (bar IQ settings with the PC racers of course), so I suppose there's that. I guess it's about how much they can really squeeze out from these consoles. Only time will tell.

 

[Hawk269]

I guess you're averse to facts then, because that's exactly what they are looking to do...at least in some capacity anyway. I think the difference between the PS4 taking advantage of compute compared to the Xbox One or Wii U, is that the PS4's GPU is a lot more capable in certain aspects of compute, at least based on the specs differences anyway. How that translates in to real world differences remains to be seen.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1107770



It'd be impossible to say. Bare in mind, there are PC Sim racers with far more advanced physics than either Forza, Project Cars or GT, and they run perfectly fine on less capable hardware, and have done for years. Most just lack the graphical spectacle, with the exception of Assetto Corsa.

As I said before, I'm not really sure just how taxing rudimentary physics calculations like tyre grip simulation, weight transfer, traction differences etc really are. When I think of advanced physics that would be truly system taxing, I think of stuff like real time damage and body deformation, complex destruction and things of that nature. That's the type of physics I'd argue would be considerably more resource taxing, and is much rarer to find in racing games (is there even a single one that offers these things?), not the kind of physics many Sim racers are doing and have been doing for years. In contrast, comparing all other racers to DriveClub, graphically nothing at present really compares, no matter the hardware in question (bar IQ settings with the PC racers of course), so I suppose there's that. I guess it's about how much they can really squeeze out from these consoles. Only time will tell.

Nib....have you played Assetto? How is it overall? I have seen a few sales on it and am thinking of jumping on it. I am a racing fan, love everything from Need for Speed Hot Pursuit, Forza, DC, Project Cars etc...just love racing games overall.

 

[TheAdmiester]

As I said before, I'm not really sure just how taxing rudimentary physics calculations like tyre grip simulation, weight transfer, traction differences etc really are. When I think of advanced physics that would be truly system taxing, I think of stuff like real time damage and body deformation, complex destruction and things of that nature. That's the type of physics I'd argue would be considerably more resource taxing, and is much rarer to find in racing games (is there even a single one that offers these things?), not the kind of physics many Sim racers are doing and have been doing for years. In contrast, comparing all other racers to DriveClub, graphically nothing at present really compares, no matter the hardware in question (bar IQ settings with the PC racers of course), so I suppose there's that. I guess it's about how much they can really squeeze out from these consoles. Only time will tell.

We still need someone to make a general game tech or physics tech thread, this one is far too limiting for most of this discussion.

Time and time again I've seen "yes, Forza does look worse, but there's a reason behind it..." met with "well this is a graphics thread m8". I want to discuss factors of WHY Forza looks worse (and yes, I'm not excusing anything. Driveclub looks better) but it's nearly impossible to do so here.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

We still need someone to make a general game tech or physics tech thread, this one is far too limiting for most of this discussion.

Time and time again I've seen "yes, Forza does look worse, but there's a reason behind it..." met with "well this is a graphics thread m8". I want to discuss factors of WHY Forza looks worse (and yes, I'm not excusing anything. Driveclub looks better) but it's nearly impossible to do so here.

The are 2 main reason why forza looks worst and driving physics is not one of them
Forza is twice the frame rate and PS4 more powerful .
I would think since most of us in this thread have some tech knowledge would know that .

 

[Hawk269]

We still need someone to make a general game tech or physics tech thread, this one is far too limiting for most of this discussion.

Time and time again I've seen "yes, Forza does look worse, but there's a reason behind it..." met with "well this is a graphics thread m8". I want to discuss factors of WHY Forza looks worse (and yes, I'm not excusing anything. Driveclub looks better) but it's nearly impossible to do so here.

Good point. I guess it is also like saying, why is DC only 30fps? Would the game look like it looks at 60fps? It goes both ways, like it or not (this is not aimed at your Admiester), just in general. I think the bottom line is that both games have different goals, DC was made to be more of an arcade like type of game where physics and unrealistic driving model was not a major factor and this allowed them to use resources to make it a prettier looking gamer, where Forza went for frame rate, car count and a more simulation type of racing game.

At the end of the day, if you are a racing fan and you like both styles, owning both DC and Forza is the way to go.

 

[bud]

Another video comparing the weather in both FM6 and Driveclub but this time the video is at 720/60fps. Driveclub still looks like a whole genreation apart IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=borC9k3dMbc

forza looks like a pc game where every graphical effect is turned down to low for optimal performance.

 

[Hawk269]

The are 2 main reason why forza looks worst and driving physics is not one of them
Forza is twice the frame rate and PS4 more powerful .

Man, you are really sticking to this aren't you? I still don't think you get it.

Let me ask you, specifically you this question:

If Drive Club had the same physics engine that Forza 6 has, do you believe that the game would look exactly like it does now, but just with a fully realized physics engine? I am not talking about compromising ANYTHING visually that it does, lighting, reflections, global lighting system. If all they did was add Forza's physics engine at the same level it runs at that DC would visually still look identical than it currently does and run the same way as it currently does???

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Man, you are really sticking to this aren't you? I still don't think you get it.

Let me ask you, specifically you this question:

If Drive Club had the same physics engine that Forza 6 has, do you believe that the game would look exactly like it does now, but just with a fully realized physics engine? I am not talking about compromising ANYTHING visually that it does, lighting, reflections, global lighting system. If all they did was add Forza's physics engine at the same level it runs at that DC would visually still look identical than it currently does and run the same way as it currently does???

Yes for the simple reason the PS4 is more powerful and the DC is only 30fps .
Cause driving physics do not take up that much power .
You can play PC racing sims that have way more advance driving physics on weak cpu.

 

[VanWinkle]

Man, you are really sticking to this aren't you? I still don't think you get it.

Let me ask you, specifically you this question:

If Drive Club had the same physics engine that Forza 6 has, do you believe that the game would look exactly like it does now, but just with a fully realized physics engine? I am not talking about compromising ANYTHING visually that it does, lighting, reflections, global lighting system. If all they did was add Forza's physics engine at the same level it runs at that DC would visually still look identical than it currently does and run the same way as it currently does???

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[Conduit]

If all they did was add Forza's physics engine at the same level it runs at that DC would visually still look identical than it currently does and run the same way as it currently does???

Not at the same level like now, but DC IMO would look noticeably better with physics for racing sim and 60 fps. After all, PS4 is stronger console.

 

[Inf3cted_b3ast]

I'm not gonna act like I know all that tech talk but if ppl are saying that another reason for DC looking better than Forza 6 is because Forza is a simulator, then why does a game like Nfs Rivals which doesn't have to render the car interiors in great detail,is running at 30fps and is even more arcady than driveclub look worse than FM6?

 

[23qwerty]

I'm not gonna act like I know all that tech talk but if ppl are saying that another reason for DC looking better than Forza 6 is because Forza is a simulator, then why does a game like Nfs Rivals which doesn't have to render the car interiors in great detail,is running at 30fps and is even more arcady than driveclub look worse than FM6?

Crossgen port I guess?

 

[Synth]

I'm not gonna act like I know all that tech talk but if ppl are saying that another reason for DC looking better than Forza 6 is because Forza is a simulator, then why does a game like Nfs Rivals which doesn't have to render the car interiors in great detail,is running at 30fps and is even more arcady than driveclub look worse than FM6?

Because they phoned that one in... not too dissimilar to Most Wanted and Carbon at the start of last gen. Look at the new NFS, and consider that as a point of comparison.

 

[Hawk269]

Not at the same level like now, but DC IMO would look noticeably better with physics for racing sim and 60 fps. After all, PS4 is stronger console.

That is not the point though.

If they were to make a new DC that focused more on a simulation game and it ran at 60fps, I agree with you that technically it would or for a better word "should" look better being it has much stronger hardware that it would run on.

My question to the other guy was more to point out that he clearly has no idea how resource intensive running a high level physics system is and that it would take away resources that could be used to do other things within the game.

Now you have me thinking of a DC racing simulation game...I would welcome that big time!

 

[texore]

That is not the point though.

If they were to make a new DC that focused more on a simulation game and it ran at 60fps, I agree with you that technically it would or for a better word "should" look better being it has much stronger hardware that it would run on.

My question to the other guy was more to point out that he clearly has no idea how resource intensive running a high level physics system is and that it would take away resources that could be used to do other things within the game.

Now you have me thinking of a DC racing simulation game...I would welcome that big time!

Can you explain how resource intensive the physics system is?

 

[Fess]

So guys what do you think is the best looking racing game currently, overall?

Driveclub in pics and 30fps videos.
Forza 6 in gameplay and 60fps videos.
Simple as that, imo.
I haven't tried Project Cars on PC yet but I assume it beats everything because it can, with the right hardware, both look awesome and run smoothly. Not sure if PC is included in this thread though.

 

[leeh]

Yes for the simple reason the PS4 is more powerful and the DC is only 30fps .
Cause driving physics do not take up that much power .
You can play PC racing sims that have way more advance driving physics on weak cpu.

The XB1 CPU is stronger after the latest SDK updates and all that jazz. Car physics run on the CPU and CPU only so that's a null point in this regard.

DC would look worse if it had a more complicated car physics model. For example, the frame render time is 33.3ms currently which could be split up 10/23.3 to the CPU and GPU respectively. The GPU can only start rendering once the CPU has completed. So if there's a more complicated car physics model, you could be split to 16/17.3ms respectively which would leave less time for the GPU to render what you see on screen.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

That is not the point though.

If they were to make a new DC that focused more on a simulation game and it ran at 60fps, I agree with you that technically it would or for a better word "should" look better being it has much stronger hardware that it would run on.

My question to the other guy was more to point out that he clearly has no idea how resource intensive running a high level physics system is and that it would take away resources that could be used to do other things within the game.

Now you have me thinking of a DC racing simulation game...I would welcome that big time!

You do know that driving physics are only one part of physics.
Something like soft body physic would take up way more resources.

 

[DD]

 

[Facundo_Lopez]

Man, this thread... I said a Mod should close it, but it has become very entertaining!

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Also i just want people to remember even thought DC is not a sim it's driving physics are still base on the same real world data like sim games.
Of course they adjust stuff and make things easier but they could change stuff if they wanted.

 

[TheAdmiester]

Also i just want people to remember even thought DC is not a sim it's driving physics are still base on the same real world data like sim games.

Yes, but it's only "simulating" five rigid bodies per car - the body and each wheel. The physics in almost every game ever are base in reality, but that doesn't mean they're always indepth or realistic. I'm sure Burnout Paradise simulates similar gravity acceleration to the real world but that doesn't make it realistic.

 

[foolishoptimist]

You do know that driving physics are only one part of physics.
Something like soft body physic would take up way more resources.

Not to mention global illumination also falls under physics simulations.

Somehow, some people have limited "tech" and "physics" to calculations that xb1 can do more of, and exclude the ones ps4 can do more of.

 

[leeh]

Man, this thread... I said a Mod should close it, but it has become very entertaining!

I just keep coming back. It's great.

I do feel like we're comparing apples to oranges. If we had PGR5, that'd be great to compare to DC and same with FM6 if we had GT7/6 remaster.

We all agree that DC has cracking weather effects. We all should congratulate T10 on adding 8 more cars, weather and a better physics model while keeping a rock solid 60. Something which is literally unique in console sims atm.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Yes, but it's only "simulating" five rigid bodies per car - the body and each wheel. The physics in almost every game ever are base in reality, but that doesn't mean they're always indepth or realistic. I'm sure Burnout Paradise simulates similar gravity acceleration to the real world but that doesn't make it realistic.

The are also simulating weight distribution ,braking performance ,aerodynamics etc etc for the cars .
Just because it not a sim does not mean it's not doing that .

 

[Conduit]

The XB1 CPU is stronger after the latest SDK updates and all that jazz. Car physics run on the CPU and CPU only so that's a null point in this regard.

You mean 7th core unclock? CPU is "stronger" since upclock before console launch.

 

[TheAdmiester]

Not to mention global illumination also falls under physics simulations.

Somehow, some people have limited "tech" and "physics" to calculations that xb1 can do more of, and exclude the ones ps4 can do more of.

No, that's not at all what people have done. GI might technically fall under physics in some cases, but it's still processed by the GPU unlike vehicle physics.

 

[leeh]

The are also simulating weight distribution ,braking performance ,aerodynamics etc etc for the cars .
Just because it not a sim does not mean it's not doing that .

We all know it's doing physics, it's just not doing as much. That 'much' I speak of removes budget from your GPU. They would of really optimised the CPU simulation in DC to allow the GPU to do more, hence the awesome weather effects.

You mean 7th core unclock? CPU is "stronger" since upclock before console launch.

Yeah, the Kinect reserve was primarily GPU wasn't it? It's great they're open about this stuff. I can imagine Sonys ICE team doing similar things but they don't say anything if they do.

 

[icecold1983]

Driveclub in pics and 30fps videos.
Forza 6 in gameplay and 60fps videos.
Simple as that, imo.
I haven't tried Project Cars on PC yet but I assume it beats everything because it can, with the right hardware, both look awesome and run smoothly. Not sure if PC is included in this thread though.

project cars on pc looks worse than forza 6

 

[foolishoptimist]

No, that's not at all what people have done. GI might technically fall under physics in some cases, but it's still processed by the GPU unlike vehicle physics.

Exactly, you just did what I said. Discounted physics calculations because they aren't calculated by the one component xb1 is stronger in.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

We all know it's doing physics, it's just not doing as much. That 'much' I speak of removes budget from your GPU. They would of really optimised the CPU simulation in DC to allow the GPU to do more, hence the awesome weather effects

What is the much your are talking about ?
Weight distribution ,braking performance ,aerodynamics , breaking etc etc
Certain things even if there not realistic going cost the same amount of recourses or more .
I mean we wont know because we have not seen the engines .

 

[etta]

Exactly, you just did what I said. Discounted physics calculations because they aren't calculated by the one component xb1 is stronger in.

You do know that even basic arcade games have physics, right? Otherwise the car wouldn't move, it wouldn't stop, it wouldn't collide and so on. Every game has physics.
When one refers to FM physics being better than DC, they mean handling, breaking, weight transfer, suspension, engine force, gear ratio, wheel spin and acceleration, slip ratio, traction, body flex when turning...etc.

 

[TheAdmiester]

Exactly, you just did what I said. Discounted physics calculations because they aren't calculated by the one component xb1 is stronger in.

What makes you think that's the reason I'm not comparing them?

Any "discounting" is because they don't compare. They wouldn't compare if both were being processed by an XB1, but one on the CPU and one on the GPU, because a GPU is just that much faster.

Certain things even if there not realistic going cost the same amount of recourses or more

What?

 

[gundamkyoukai]

You do know that even basic arcade games have physics, right? Otherwise the car wouldn't move, it wouldn't stop, it wouldn't collide and so on. Every game has physics.
When one refers to FM physics being better than DC, they mean handling, breaking, weight transfer, suspension, engine force, gear ratio, wheel spin and acceleration, slip ratio, traction, body flex when turning...etc.

A lot of that stuff can be adjust with no performance hit on the engine .

What?

I am saying that adjusting certain values on the driving physics won't take up more recourses .

 

[leeh]

What is the much your are talking about ?
Weight distribution ,braking performance ,aerodynamics , breaking etc etc
Certain things even if there not realistic going cost the same amount of recourses or more .

If you press up on the dpad on Forza, you'd know what I mean. A basic example is the tire model, which includes tire deformation. It's not that DC doesn't have a good physics model, it just isn't a simulator. A simulator goes out of it's way to do more which cuts time from your GPU since it does more. It's just how simulators are. Also, the physics engine runs at 90hz (refreshes 90 times in a second), so even the physics engine in Forza runs 3x as much in a second than DC does. That really takes a hit on the CPU.

Cool how they do that actually, thinking about it.

 

[TheAdmiester]

A lot of that stuff can be adjust with not performance hit on the engine .

I'm not sure you're even talking about the same thing.

Of course something basic like "Friction = 1" being changed to "Friction = 2" will have little impact on performance, but the point is that a game that only simulates friction will run better than a game that simulates friction AND gravity, for instance.

 

[etta]

A lot of that stuff can be adjust with not performance hit on the engine .

Yea, sure. Math is done for free by CPU's. No processing time required at all. That's why all racing games have all the vehicular physics algorithms ever formulated by man in them, right?

If you press up on the dpad on Forza, you'd know what I mean. A basic example is the tire model, which includes tire deformation. It's not that DC doesn't have a good physics model, it just isn't a simulator. A simulator goes out of it's way to do more which cuts time from your GPU since it does more. It's just how simulators are. Also, the physics engine runs at 90hz (refreshes 90 times in a second), so even the physics engine in Forza runs 3x as much in a second than DC does. That really takes a hit on the CPU.

Cool how they do that actually, thinking about it.

Forza Horizon 1 on 360 did physics at 360 Hz, so I am sure that Motorsport on XBO does at least that.

 

[foolishoptimist]

You do know that even basic arcade games have physics, right? Otherwise the car wouldn't move, it wouldn't stop, it wouldn't collide and so on. Every game has physics.
When one refers to FM physics being better than DC, they mean handling, breaking, weight transfer, suspension, engine force, gear ratio, wheel spin and acceleration, slip ratio, traction, body flex when turning...etc.

Yes, I am aware that not all physics simulations are equal.

Yes, I am aware the people talking about Forza are specifically talking about a very physics with an extremely limited scope of things Forza does more of/better.

But I also know that the physics they're talking about have almost nothing to do with Graphics. Those physics that DC is simulating far better.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Yea, sure. Math is done for free by CPU's. No processing time required at all. That's why all racing games have all the vehicular physics algorithms ever formulated by man in them, right?

Yeah it is if you just talking about changing certain values .
Now don't get me wrong i know Forza is doing more physics driving wise than DC .

 

[TheSpecialOne]

Way to jump on someone for absolutely no reason.

Forza is a simulator (or simcade depending on how you feel about it), it's pretty damn obvious that it is indeed doing more under the hood.

And you do? Is seems you are the one that does not have a clue about engines, physics and what goes into making a game. Just using one aspect of frame rate where one is 60fps vs. 30fps alone says that Forza is doing a lot more on a technical level than DC. I am not saying one looks better than the other, but when you take into account the physics engine, 60fps, 24 cars on the track, it equals that one game is doing more on a technical level.

I think and I am going to assume here, you are confusing what one game is doing technically versus one game rendering prettier graphics.

Edit: My comment about Forza doing more under the hood than DC was going against the topic of the thread, which seems to be "ONLY" about graphics according to someone who called me out on that. So if that comment was against this particular threads primary subject, I apologize if I offended anyone with that.

Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Doing more what under the hood? Physics computations? possibly but not enough details are known. General Computation? Not even close. The computational resources required to implement a full GI solution is far greater that the basic physics calculations Forza is doing. Doing more on a technical level? What a load of rubbish. The amount of work that can be done is limited by their engine and the power of the hardware they are working with. The resource they have to work with are finite and well defined. It is theoretically impossible for a first party xbox one game using 100% gpu and cpu utilization to be doing more under the hood that a first party ps4 game using the same cpu and gpu utilization. Forza isn't really even a "sim" when compared to games like Assetto Corsa and their physics calculations aren't that intesive so I'm not quite sure what you two rambling about.

 

[leeh]

Forza Horizon 1 on 360 did physics at 360 Hz, so I am sure that Motorsport on XBO does at least that.

Oh rly? I remember them bigging it up on FM3 I think? Always thought it was 90hz though not 360hz. That's amazing. Probably the main reason I felt like PCars handled horribly.

 

[etta]

Yeah it is if you just talking about changing certain values .
Now don't get me wrong i know Forza is doing more physics wise than DC .

I honestly can't tell if you're serious.
Running complex physics algorithms, a lot more than the ones I listed, all at once. Let me repeat, all of them at once. And doing it at least at 360 cycles per second. On a laptop CPU.
And this is just the physics part of the engine. The CPU has the rest of the game to process as well.
Edit: This isn't like an fps/tps and its physics engine. The physics here are part of the car. Every change in position, speed, direction, inclination...etc. demands the physics algorithms be refreshed and recalculated.

 

[TheAdmiester]

Again, you couldn't be more wrong. Doing more what under the hood? Physics computations? possibly but not enough details are known. General Computation? Not even close. The computational resources required to implement a full GI solution is far greater that the basic physics calculations Forza is doing. Doing more on a technical level? What a load of rubbish. The amount of work that can be done is limited by their engine and the power of the hardware they are working with. The resource they have to work with are finite and well defined. It is theoretically impossible for a first party xbox one game using 100% gpu and cpu utilization to be doing more under the hood that a first party ps4 game using the same cpu and gpu utilization. Forza isn't really even a "sim" when compared to games like Assetto Corsa and their physics calculations aren't that intesive so I'm not quite sure what you two rambling about.

I've already explained multiple times before your post what I mean. Physics are some of the most intensive things you can calculate and process to ever exist.

It's been discussed plenty of times in the past few pages but if you want to be dismissive and flat-out call people wrong then that's your decision I guess.

EDIT:
This part in particular is hilarious though.

Doing more on a technical level? What a load of rubbish

 

[TheSpecialOne]

I've already explained multiple times before your post what I mean. Physics are some of the most intensive things you can calculate and process to ever exist.

It's been discussed plenty of times in the past few pages but if you want to be dismissive and flat-out call people wrong then that's your decision I guess.

EDIT:
This part in particular is hilarious though.

Just a quick question then, do you have any experience making games to make such an assertion? I do have experience with it and I'm more than happy to change my mind if you are willing to provide evidence to support your hypothesis. I'd suggest you'd go read up on global illumination before you reply with evidence because once you understand that, then you'll know why I refuse to back off on my stance.

BTW, i'll flat out call you wrong because my experience has proven you wrong time and time again.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Physics vs. Global Illumination.

Forza > DC
DC > Forza

Who's more technical? tune in 5 pages from now.

Spoiler

Graphics Face-off...

 

[TheAdmiester]

Just a quick question then, do you have any experience making games to make such an assertion? I do have experience with it and I'm more than happy to change my mind if you are willing to provide evidence to support your hypothesis. I'd suggest you'd go read up on global illumination before you reply with evidence because once you understand that, then you'll know why I refuse to back off on my stance.

I have knowledge of the challenges and resources required related to implementing anything remotely realistic with the physical properties of rubber. It's a struggle that has existed for years, and even rough approximations are very resource intensive. As I said in the pages beforehand, there's a reason that any truly realistic simulation of a vehicle is rendered in a timescale fathoms behind real time.