Looks like GTS has light but not modelling reflected.
Here are two shots of mine.
I thought I'd interrupt the whole GT vs Forza debate with something that neither of them have - reflections of dynamic objects. It's not my best shot (and I didn't keep the PNG copy, oops) but you can clearly see the DB11 is reflected in the Mustang.
)
I appreciate why you posted that video but the sun has already disappeared and the in-engine technology just dims the light to pitch black after that.
It's also why I'm really grateful Polyphony Digital do all the work. You hand out jobs to third parties and standards will differ.
No self reflections = much better?
Any example in Forza? I'm used to see nothing resembling realistic reflections in the AI cars, and even less tail-lights reflecting like lightsources between cars.
Probably because Kazunori Yamauchi is also a semi-professional photographer. He's got quite the collection of camera's and lens, hence his advanced HDR work.
Thanks. Looks more like a spotlight than a true reflection?
I have no idea to be honest, it's hard to tell in any of them really whether it's "reflection of light source" versus "light casting on the car". If you have some criteria for what counts as a real reflection I'll look into it.
I don't mean the shape of the tail light reflection, I guess that all games does make shortcuts there.I have no idea to be honest, it's hard to tell in any of them really whether it's "reflection of light source" versus "light casting on the car". If you have some criteria for what counts as a real reflection I'll look into it.
What I did notice that I assume some will pick up on - the reflection isn't anywhere near as wide as the car's actual tail light. I took a frame from the GTS gif with its own light reflection and compared it, the light in the reflection is roughly half as wide as the real source.
Every game I've seen with light reflections seems to reflect them as spots rather than in the actual shape, so I'm going to just assume that Forza's is reasonably accurate since it's consistent with others' approches.
What an awful lot of text for something so small
Yeah, that's some proof. Didn't work with the original paints?I think this should settle it. I painted a van chrome to test, just to have a large, flat, reflective surface area. Using the same terms you used (casting versus reflections) just to make it clear.
In the first shot, the van is reflecting the light sources of the two cars behind it. The top white lights are from the track stands, the bottom yellow lights are from cars. The reflections are clearly being rendered on the middle of the van, the reflector at the top, and the reflectors in the reverse lights. The casting lights are visible on the Ford badge, the area where the plates would be, and the road of course. EDIT: Also, bear in mind that the casting isn't quite as visible on the van in these shots since chrome is less rough and will diffuse less light.
The second shot is the exact same shot with all headlights switched off. Open them in two tabs and flick between, you can see where each reflection would've been and where each light cast would've been.
This shot has light reflections visible (the Hilux's rear lights on the van), but not much casting going on as it's not fully dark + the Hilux seems to have rather dim lights.
Hope that's clear enough, I was starting to struggle to find proof until I had the idea of making a hideous chrome van
