Support NeoGAF

[nib95]

I was requested to take some gameplay pics because "bullshots". It turns out I take pics with my gameplay settings and suddenly the problem is the angle. It's fun because two of the pics say "Manual Control", which means, no matter the angle, I have full control of the car, which means those are gameplay shots.

As I've said many times now in this thread, people like to invalidate all the things that are not convenient to their argument.

This is simply not true. Just looking for a fairer and more transparent set of comparison parameters. Poster shots vs gameplay shots is certainly not that. I find it amusing that there is a reluctance with people to post ProjectCars gameplay shots and more importantly, gameplay videos, I think that says a lot in itself.

Notice that in the OP of this very thread, every single GIF posted is a direct gameplay GIF. If you post a birds eye shot of a car and it's grass textures from ProjectCars, how exactly are people supposed to compare that with gameplay or similar shots from DriveClub, NFS etc? They simply couldn't. Whereas gameplay shots that show similar angles, and thus vehicle geometry, car models, similar interiors, similar roadside views and surrounding foliage or tree's, mountains etc, can be compared, and the lighting, geometry, shader, shadow etc etc differences more easily gauged.

These are more easily comparable.

Video comparison.
ProjectCars vs DriveClub Video Comparison

GIF comparison.

Screenshot comparison.
My Comparison post comparing gameplay shots earlier.


These are not.

Anyway, none of this matters. Just a bit of fun. Spending a little too much time in this thread lol.

 

[Synth]

This is simply not true. Just looking for a fairer and more transparent set of comparison parameters. Poster shots vs gameplay shots is certainly not that. I find it amusing that there is a reluctance with people to post ProjectCars gameplay shots and more importantly, gameplay videos, I think that says a lot in itself.

Notice that in the OP of this very thread, every single GIF posted is a direct gameplay GIF. If you post a birds eye shot of a car and it's grass textures from ProjectCars, how exactly are people supposed to compare that with gameplay or similar shots from DriveClub, NFS etc? They simply couldn't. Whereas gameplay shots that show similar angles, and thus vehicle geometry, car models, similar interiors, similar roadside views and surrounding foliage or tree's, mountains etc, can be compared, and the lighting, geometry, shader, shadow etc etc differences more easily gauged.

Trying to create completed direct comparisons for games that aren't competing directly has too many flaws to be worth concerning ourselves with imo. Being a primarily track based racer PCars was always going to be at a disadvantage vs Driveclub, which is allowed almost Outrun 2 levels of freedom in terms of creating locations purely to look nice (see also, Forza Horizon). This appears to be the main reason for the fascination with 'gameplay' angles, as that causes the screen to be dominated by trees and such, whilst essentially hiding any possible details for the cars themselves. However, if Forza 5 had a course filled with it's Vista car models I would absolutely argue that it had better graphics than pretty much any other racer, even though this upgrade would be far less apparent if we were only allowed to submit behind-the-car or cockpit shots. Taking shots that are closer up of from another angle where the details can be seen is fair game in a graphics comparison, because these are still the game's graphics. If during a replay the game looks basically indistinguishable from real life, then that game has amazing graphics.

Also, Project Cars fans haven't been too shy to post gameplay shots and clips. They've done so plenty of times throughout the thread, such as this one here:

It was primarily the gameplay shots that changed me from thinking Driveclub looked better to thinking Project Cars looks better actually. However, when they've done so they've been met with other reasons why their shots don't count such as Driveclub not having weather effects, so take those out. I'm not surprised that they would rather just post the screens they want rather than adhere strictly to the demands of the Driveclub fans in this thread now.

 

[fresquito]

This is simply not true. Just looking for a fairer and more transparent set of comparison parameters. Poster shots vs gameplay shots is certainly not that. I find it amusing that there is a reluctance with people to post ProjectCars gameplay shots and more importantly, gameplay videos, I think that says a lot in itself.

lol? I've posted two videos. You can watch a lot more at my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7HL_9yJeHhSk6KuXaP1qVQ

I've said it many times before: YT videos can't do the game any justice. For istance, I record with Shadowplay, which already loses quality over the original game IQ. Then I render, but can't go to big bitrates, because my upload speed sucks and videos would take forever to upload. Then YT will butch anything you upload, so... your point is people are reluctant to post YT videos of pCARS, even when we do, and you want those because you know the IQ will be much lower that those found in pics, but not because some photomode, but because compression artifacts.

I find amusing what you consider to be fair and what you don't. It's is fair to compare gameplay gifs becuase those show pretty enviroments. What they don't show is 30 vs 60 framerate, IQ or quality of assets,

 

[Dilly]

This is simply not true. Just looking for a fairer and more transparent set of comparison parameters. Poster shots vs gameplay shots is certainly not that. I find it amusing that there is a reluctance with people to post ProjectCars gameplay shots and more importantly, gameplay videos, I think that says a lot in itself.

What are you talking about? Except for the handful screenshots from the next-gen consoles all footage is gameplay footage.

 

[Solal]

nope!
we've had two perfectly good pages without name calling and rage against games.
the gifs are very fine without the name of the game known.
do you like them? thats what counts.

Well a Face-off without naming the games... that's a new concept!

I love them... That's why I wanted to know.

 

[psn]

Comparing them is useless atm, because we only have some footage of driveclub where you can't set the time of the day, zoom in or take a shot from an angle you would like... In Project Cars you can, and its a big difference. These are my ingame settings, nearly all maxed out except for AA, shadows and motion blur.

Spoiler

You don't miss it that much while racing

Trying to have the same angle, just at a different time of the day:

While both are not really beauty shots, the second one looks much better.

ATM you can only do that kind of shots in PCars. Again the same settings in both shots.

Spoiler

Wheel LOD bugged I guess, just ignore it, usually it looks better.

But what is left when you zoom out?

Until we can do the same with Driveclub, pictures like this won't be helpful.

Spoiler

Or pics where you use a perfect angle for the perfect shot at the perfect time of the day, downsampled from 4k to 720p.

Project Cars looks definitely good, but the lightning is a bit off atm.

Spoiler

They still have much time to make it better and at noon it's really hard to get a realistic look.

It looks really nice at some time of the day, but most of the time its a bit off. Same for Assetto Corsa. It looks better in the morning or the evening. Driveclub just looks more realistic from what I have seen. But again, I guess we can't really tell, because we only see what they want us to see at the moment.

Only thing I don't like about Driveclub yet is that it's only 30fps. I have a 144Hz monitor with Lightboost and I use to have 60fps at minimum in racing games.

Just remember what will be left when you actually play the game.

PCars maxed out in 4k on Youtube at noon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOuPsVc1zAM

Or just decide which time of the day looks best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6JLyZb_jOM
(don't mind the track detail at some points, its still WIP.

Sure you can park your car next to a puddle, set the perfect time of the day for the angle and do a great screenshot. But what are you going to prove if you put it side by side to a random screenshot from driveclub?
I guess I just don't get it...

 

[p3tran]

lol? I've posted two videos. You can watch a lot more at my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7HL_9yJeHhSk6KuXaP1qVQ

I've said it many times before: YT videos can't do the game any justice. For istance, I record with Shadowplay, which already loses quality over the original game IQ. Then I render, but can't go to big bitrates, because my upload speed sucks and videos would take forever to upload. Then YT will butch anything you upload, so... your point is people are reluctant to post YT videos of pCARS, even when we do, and you want those because you know the IQ will be much lower that those found in pics, but not because some photomode, but because compression artifacts.

I find amusing what you consider to be fair and what you don't. It's is fair to compare gameplay gifs becuase those show pretty enviroments. What they don't show is 30 vs 60 framerate, IQ or quality of assets,

I totally agree that it is impossible to make detail judgement on a 1080p/60hz racing game (or even higher in pc pcars case) through youtube videos.
and that is if you have a good capture card in the first place.
for example, if we are to judge graphic fidelity for forza on clips created by the xbone "upload" util (2 to 3 Mbits thick!!) that are further uploaded to youtube, I am willing to bet that the compression will harm it way more than a 4k pcars footage is harmed.

from this kind of videos we can get a very good basic idea. not much more than that.

Well a Face-off without naming the games... that's a new concept!

I love them... That's why I wanted to know.

well, I love these kind of threads, until they transform to totally illogical strings of words and bashing, which is what happens by history, especially when the conditions are met.
thats why its not a good idea to mention the name of the particular game (part of the above "meet condition" thingy). so lets just call it "the game that its name cannot be spoken" and continue

 

[fresquito]

Comparing them is useless atm, because we only have some footage of driveclub where you can't set the time of the day, zoom in or take a shot from an angle you would like... In Project Cars you can, and its a big difference. These are my ingame settings, nearly all maxed out except for AA, shadows and motion blur.

Spoiler

You don't miss it that much while racing

I'd recommend lowering reflections and envmap to high if you want better shadows and detailed grass on (it really adds to the package). Besides, Render Fraes Ahead works better at 1, in my experience and I think flares look better at subtle.

Edit: Since you talk about lighting, I think this can a have a place in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSZGfAIz-4s

 

[psn]

I'd recommend lowering reflections and envmap to high if you want better shadows and detailed grass on (it really adds to the package). Besides, Render Fraes Ahead works better at 1, in my experience and I think flares look better at subtle.

Thanks, I'm going to set it to subtle (at least inside). The detailed grass is beautiful, but I had some dips below 60 when there is a long corner with many cars. I try to lower the reflections first.

Render frames ahead at one just lowers the input lag but may cause a bigger fps drop or am I wrong?

 

[Rorian]

good graphics

 

[Durante]

This is simply not true. Just looking for a fairer and more transparent set of comparison parameters.

For someone who is so incredibly concerned about fairness and transparency, I find it interesting how you always seem to arrive at such... specific selections in your posts. For example, in this most recent one, you have a DriveClub .gif which shows the sun at a low angle, glowing through the tress -- probably the most nice-looking situation lighting-wise in any semi-recent game with HDR rendering, bloom and lightshafts. On the other hand, your PCars selection is taking place around noon, which is one of the most (realistically) "boring" lighting conditions.

As we see in Synth's post (which looks amazing btw.), it's not like more comparable gameplay footage isn't readily available.

 

[fresquito]

Render frames ahead at one just lowers the input lag but may cause a bigger fps drop or am I wrong?

You're welcome. I don't know, really. I just tried 2 and 1 and 1 gave me a better result. You need to make sure it's also your choice in the GPU panel. (make sure you have one screen selected as well, because nVidia by default goes for multiple screen, I don't know why).

 

[Mascot]

Good Lord.

 

[JayLee]

The sad realisation of no PGR5 is strong with this.

I'm also going to make a GIF of F1 in FM5, easily the game at it's best.

 

[nib95]

For someone who is so incredibly concerned about fairness and transparency, I find it interesting how you always seem to arrive at such... specific selections in your posts. For example, in this most recent one, you have a DriveClub .gif which shows the sun at a low angle, glowing through the tress -- probably the most nice-looking situation lighting-wise in any semi-recent game with HDR rendering, bloom and lightshafts. On the other hand, your PCars selection is taking place around noon, which is one of the most (realistically) "boring" lighting conditions.

As we see in Synth's post (which looks amazing btw.), it's not like more comparable gameplay footage isn't readily available.

Post one better then. It was originally posted by a fan of the game to show off the game in good standing, and is perhaps the best daylight GIF in a similar surrounding I've seen anywhere. It literally was me selecting the best GIF I could find of the game in that environment. I don't even think the DriveClub one is, the new gameplay in Canada looks far better, but it'd make it a less fair comparison as thousands of trees looks better than just mountain and rocks.

The more awesome actual gameplay GIFs or screens you guys post that we can directly compare, the better. I'll try and reinstall it myself when I get back from my function and maybe take some myself.

 

[T.O.P]

holy fuck

 

[twobear]

Okay guys. Look to make this comparison fair we need in-game pictures of PCars running on a $400 PC (to verify this I must be able to see the HUD and your receipt for the parts), only comparing screenshots of tracks set in Scotland, with no weather, with no better image quality than Driveclub, with any other graphical effects that Driveclub doesn't have disabled, captured from a YouTube video of the gameplay.

When you meet those demands let me know, so that I can move the goalposts a lil more.

 

[mephixto]

Okay guys. Look to make this comparison fair we need in-game pictures of PCars running on a $400 PC (to verify this I must be able to see the HUD and your receipt for the parts), only comparing screenshots of tracks set in Scotland, with no weather, with no better image quality than Driveclub, with any other graphical effects that Driveclub doesn't have disabled, captured from a YouTube video of the gameplay.

When you meet those demands let me know, so that I can move the goalposts a lil more.

 

[Cygnus]

Okay guys. Look to make this comparison fair we need in-game pictures of PCars running on a $400 PC (to verify this I must be able to see the HUD and your receipt for the parts), only comparing screenshots of tracks set in Scotland, with no weather, with no better image quality than Driveclub, with any other graphical effects that Driveclub doesn't have disabled, captured from a YouTube video of the gameplay.

When you meet those demands let me know, so that I can move the goalposts a lil more.

Ha!

 

[Nethaniah]

So no love for Next Car Game? Guess it can't really compete with the heavyweights but it has some nice destruction.

They seem to be overhauling the engine atm.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Okay guys. Look to make this comparison fair we need in-game pictures of PCars running on a $400 PC (to verify this I must be able to see the HUD and your receipt for the parts), only comparing screenshots of tracks set in Scotland, with no weather, with no better image quality than Driveclub, with any other graphical effects that Driveclub doesn't have disabled, captured from a YouTube video of the gameplay.

When you meet those demands let me know, so that I can move the goalposts a lil more.

:lol

 

[VanWinkle]

Man you guys are being so ridiculous. It's simply easier and more logical to post GAMEPLAY screenshots like for like. This is a graphics face-off. Infamous Second Son's photo mode doesn't increase the image quality, add any additional AA, and the DoF is the same kind used in the game, but I wouldn't use photo mode shots to compare it with another game because it's not representative of GAMEPLAY and it makes it harder to compare.

And, yes, some gameplay shots of Project Cars have been posted; obviously he's not talking about those ones. The artistic shots just have no reason to be posted in this specific thread. They're awesome, and I enjoy them, but unnecessary for this thread.

 

[RetroStu]

This is simply not true. Just looking for a fairer and more transparent set of comparison parameters. Poster shots vs gameplay shots is certainly not that. I find it amusing that there is a reluctance with people to post ProjectCars gameplay shots and more importantly, gameplay videos, I think that says a lot in itself.

Notice that in the OP of this very thread, every single GIF posted is a direct gameplay GIF. If you post a birds eye shot of a car and it's grass textures from ProjectCars, how exactly are people supposed to compare that with gameplay or similar shots from DriveClub, NFS etc? They simply couldn't. Whereas gameplay shots that show similar angles, and thus vehicle geometry, car models, similar interiors, similar roadside views and surrounding foliage or tree's, mountains etc, can be compared, and the lighting, geometry, shader, shadow etc etc differences more easily gauged.

These are more easily comparable.

Video comparison.
ProjectCars vs DriveClub Video Comparison

GIF comparison.

When you see comparisons like this, there is no contest. Drive Club simply looks better, it looks 'real' while PCars still looks like a videogame.

 

[hooijdonk17]

As someone who owns or has no interest in any of the games at the moment, I must say Driveclub looks better than the other two by a mile.

 

[Skyzard]

So no love for Next Car Game? Guess it can't really compete with the heavyweights but it has some nice destruction.

They seem to be overhauling the engine atm.

Loving it myself. Still though.

 

[VanWinkle]

Loving it myself. Still though.

Wait what game is that?

 

[Kssio_Aug]

Theyre looking good, but Forza 5 simply doesnt appeal to me. I hope to see Forza Horizon 2 soon, that will be great! Projet Cars and DriveClub on the other hand, are gorgeous!

 

[Nethaniah]

Wait what game is that?

New game from Bugbear (flatout series / RR unbounded).

 

[The Rain King]

Okay guys. Look to make this comparison fair we need in-game pictures of PCars running on a $400 PC (to verify this I must be able to see the HUD and your receipt for the parts), only comparing screenshots of tracks set in Scotland, with no weather, with no better image quality than Driveclub, with any other graphical effects that Driveclub doesn't have disabled, captured from a YouTube video of the gameplay.

When you meet those demands let me know, so that I can move the goalposts a lil more.

*At 30 fps.

 

[theWB27]

So now it's nib95 creating all kinds of restrictions on Pcars shots in order to prove a point.

Plain and simple...Pcars looks better. It does more at double the frames. It's already hitting 60fps on PS4 also.

Driveclub was built around its visuals. It's one of, if not its biggest selling point. Unlike the other racers, which are sim and hit 60fps, visuals take a back seat to performance. Yet, there's still a debate on which looks better.

Also, these track based racers are at an disadvantage with DC since its visuals are mimicking real life environments.

Unlike DC, which the environments have been built with the DC devs being able to create the situations they want.

DC has been shown with its best leg forward. We've only been shown what the devs have wanted us to see.

Forza 5 are in peoples' hands and can be dissected to pieces. Also it was released a year before these other two.

Pcars is an unfinished, crowd sourced title that can also be dissected to pieces. For some reason...the DC crowd don't like it when Pcars puts its best leg forward even though they know everything being shown can actually be produced. They just want to ugly parts to be its measuring stick.

DC....we know next to nothing about because we're being spoon fed what the devs want. Also....30fps.

 

[Skyzard]

Wait what game is that?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/228380/

It's still quite early but it's very fun to play. Made by the flatout guys, bugbear and it features REALLY, REALLY cool destruction. A few race modes included, 3 cars and some derby stuff. Very basic, no campaign yet but great fun. Also comes with a playground kind of map to mess about in.

 

[rashbeep]

After seeing more examples (thanks nib for posting more representative screens of pCARS, not that nonsense you were posting in your original comparison of what looked liked the game at low settings) I think the only area in which DC beats it is lighting. Everything else looks better to me in pCARS.

 

[commedieu]

He is talking about the hands/wheel being reflected in real-time. This is not present in Driveclub

has it already been pointed out that its a faked reflection? The thumb of the driver is in the reflection, at the same angle we are looking at it now. Its that same fake reflection effect they used for the hood/world methinks.

 

[LukasTaves]

GIF comparison.

Which is the game from the top gif? This looks incredible.

 

[VanWinkle]

So now it's nib95 creating all kinds of restrictions on Pcars shots in order to prove a point.

Plain and simple...Pcars looks better. It does more at double the frames. It's already hitting 60fps on PS4 also.

Driveclub was built around its visuals. It's one of, if not its biggest selling point. Unlike the other racers, which are sim and hit 60fps, visuals take a back seat to performance. Yet, there's still a debate on which looks better.

Also, these track based racers are at an disadvantage with DC since its visuals are mimicking real life environments.

Unlike DC, which the environments have been built with the DC devs being able to create the situations they want.

DC has been shown with its best leg forward. We've only been shown what the devs have wanted us to see.

Forza 5 are in peoples' hands and can be dissected to pieces. Also it was released a year before these other two.

Pcars is an unfinished, crowd sourced title that can also be dissected to pieces. For some reason...the DC crowd don't like it when Pcars puts its best leg forward even though they know everything being shown can actually be produced. They just want to ugly parts to be its measuring stick.

DC....we know next to nothing about because we're being spoon fed what the devs want. Also....30fps.

So you feel Project Cars having gameplay shots like the other games in the thread is a big restriction on it?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/228380/

It's still quite early but it's very fun to play. Made by the flatout guys, bugbear and it features REALLY, REALLY cool destruction. A few race modes included, 3 cars and some derby stuff. Very basic, no campaign yet but great fun. Also comes with a playground kind of map to mess about in.

Ah interesting. Not huge into the destruction derby genre but it looks pretty cool.

 

[Zaptruder]

Nib... just buy yourself a nice PC, pick up an Oculus Rift consumer version when it releases, and enjoy a next gen driving experience with PCars sooner rather than later. Then you won't feel so pressured to justify your emotional investment into Sony.

 

[VanWinkle]

Nib... just buy yourself a nice PC, pick up an Oculus Rift consumer version when it releases, and enjoy a next gen driving experience with PCars sooner rather than later. Then you won't feel so pressured to justify your emotional investment into Sony.

Speaking of justifying their emotional investments...

 

[LukasTaves]

When you see comparisons like this, there is no contest. Drive Club simply looks better, it looks 'real' while PCars still looks like a videogame.

Which is which? The lighting model seems better on the bottom one, but I think the top one nailed better the realistic tone.

 

[rashbeep]

So you feel Project Cars having gameplay shots like the other games in the thread is a big restriction on it?

I certainly don't, the ones that were posted in the thread look great.

 

[Cygnus]

Which is which? The lighting model seems better on the bottom one, but I think the top one nailed better the realistic tone.

Driveclub is the one with the Driveclub logo on the satnav

 

[Krisprolls]

Which is which? The lighting model seems better on the bottom one, but I think the top one nailed better the realistic tone.

Not really... The tunnel part looks horrible on the top one. The bottom one looks more realistic.

 

[Nozem]

When comparing Driveclub (or Forza) to a maxed out Project Cars on a high end PC the power difference is so big, it becomes more of a hardware comparison than a game comparison.

I'd love to see more screens and video's of Project Cars on PS4 or Xbox One, but I guess they're not readily available yet.

 

[RetroStu]

Plain and simple...Pcars looks better. It does more at double the frames. It's already hitting 60fps on PS4 also.

Doesn't that kind of prove that Drive Club looks better?, the fact that its only 30fps and PCars is already running at 60fps on PS4 AND has Morpheus support (which needs even more processing power).

Anyway Drive Club looks better to me, you may be able to run PCars at 4k resolutions with 75x trilinear AA or whatever but in terms of actual graphics, Drive Club looks better by a country mile imo.

 

[Red Chocobo]

All the next/current gen racing games look so good that it almost seems pointless comparing them. Everyone wins.

 

[shandy706]

**Moved to next page to add Gifs**

Realized a lot of people may not have the WebM plugin and may just skip links.

 

[RetroStu]

Which is which? The lighting model seems better on the bottom one, but I think the top one nailed better the realistic tone.

Bottom one is Drive Club and in no way does PCars look more realistic in that gif, quite the opposite imo.

 

[VanWinkle]

I'd love to see more screens and video's of Project Cars on PS4 or Xbox One, but I guess they're not readily available yet.

Yeah it will be great when it releases on consoles!

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

Bottom one is Drive Club and in no way does PCars look more realistic in that gif, quite the opposite imo.

Just have to agree to disagree then.

Driveclub looks like an artists impression of a sunset. It's pretty and dramatic. PCars looks like realistic daytime lighting, not spectacular but then daytime lighting often isn't. It does look like what my eyes expect to see from realistic daytime lighting though.

 

[RetroStu]

Just have to agree to disagree then.

Driveclub looks like an artists impression of a sunset. It's pretty and dramatic. PCars looks like realistic daytime lighting, not spectacular but then daytime lighting often isn't. It does look like what my eyes expect to see from realistic daytime lighting though.

They are different times of day though, the Drive Club one is obviously much later in the day.

Anyway when i look at those small gifs, i could quite easily believe that the Drive Club gif was a video taken from inside a car, i couldn't with the PCars gif which still has that obvious videogame look to it.

 

[Gestault]

Can anyone think of any titles we've missed? I've been adding "starter" gifs of the ones that've come up in discussion. In theory, I love the idea of people who are into each game seeing and adding particularly scenic/impressive moments from their familiarity with each.