PS4 pCars is going to run at 60fps so I highly doubt the image quality is going to be better than DC's. It wouldn't be a fair comparison with different goals in framerate.
-
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
PS4 pCars is going to run at 60fps so I highly doubt the image quality is going to be better than DC's. It wouldn't be a fair comparison with different goals in framerate.
Fess
Member
I'm going 60+ fps too on PC with Gsync and consoles look incredibly outdated now in every multiplat game I've tried so far because of that, but Driveclub somehow manage to impress me anyway, I'd love if it was 60fps but it's far from unplayable as some people seem to think, I've had tons of fun with it.
Still, I can't agree that it seems like a 60fps game. It's 30fps and it looks and plays as a 30fps game, the problem is just as with any other 30fps racer that when you drive the faster cars everything at the sides is not just blurry but is also flickering like crazy because the scenery isn't updated fast enough. Doesn't make it less fun to play though, it just doesn't look as nice as it could've looked.
yeah, it isn't visible on one website...but is visible on a different one.... so nice that is cleared up.
it's unfortunate that is how it looks like on your screen...
I've own this game since launch and man... it looks amazing and nothing like that shot.
I'll say this one last time as apparently some people have a hard time reading my posts. I'm not making a statement that Game X looks better than Game Y, I find it funny and sad at the same time that people do seem to think so and feel the need to quickly grab everything they can to counter my posts.
And with that I take my leave from this thread as apparently you can't post anything about Driveclub without it being positive or else you'll get the Driveclub defense force chasing you...
Oh for fucks sake.
I'll post it once again since people have a hard time reading! I only try to point out that's it isn't good use to use photo mode shots as "just as good gameplay shots". Nothing more nothing less.
And I posted two examples, one moving and one standing still what convenient that you somehow managed to only read to one with the still shots.
How funny that you complain about compression on my shots when I post 3~4MB uncompressed PNGs taking with capture hardware but don't complain about compression when someone is posting compressed 500KB JPGs, and even use compressed shots as an example.
And those comparisons you linked too show aliasing in gameplay shots but don't show that in photo mode shotsDon't let the water splashes on the camera fool you.
Once again, I didn't cherry picked those shots. I picked a random track and drove to random point when the photo mode was added to the game. By the way you do realize that some of those shots you're using are mine right
As a matter of fact yes I did.
I do own the game, strange my trophies should be visible for public view.
Yeah, I think it's just your shots are probably the worse I've seen of the game.
Norway's circuit track is easily the worse looking tracks in the game as well.jellies_two
Member
I like how people throw around the term IQ like it is one number.
What is IQ? Image Quality? oh you mean the sum total of resolution, anti-aliasing, textures, physical based rendering, shadow quality, lighting and various other things?
In that case, DC in-game (not photo-mode) has the best IQ overall.
Project Cars I hope will succeed to be a great sim.
there is space for many racing games. Just because it runs on PC doesn't mean it MUST have the best image quality, though. I'd prefer they concentrate on perfecting the sim anyway, not chasing driveclub lighting and shaders. Please beat iRacing.
What is IQ? Image Quality? oh you mean the sum total of resolution, anti-aliasing, textures, physical based rendering, shadow quality, lighting and various other things?
In that case, DC in-game (not photo-mode) has the best IQ overall.
Project Cars I hope will succeed to be a great sim.
there is space for many racing games. Just because it runs on PC doesn't mean it MUST have the best image quality, though. I'd prefer they concentrate on perfecting the sim anyway, not chasing driveclub lighting and shaders. Please beat iRacing.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
Yes, I do see your point. Would be better to compare on hardware that has virtually no limitations.
PCars weather https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAjh19AsFHc
DC weather https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-JCp2iSkbk
PCars IQ is nowhere near current gen racing games graphically and fucking miles behind DC, just watching the first video induces gag reflexes.
DC weather https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-JCp2iSkbk
PCars IQ is nowhere near current gen racing games graphically and fucking miles behind DC, just watching the first video induces gag reflexes.
Wow, this thread's still alive?
Anyway, I recall casting my vote for Project Cars earlier in the thread based on that rainy gif in the city track. I think I said something along the lines that I'd re-evaluate my stance if/when Driveclub got its weather patch. Now that its actually out, and I've given it a try, I can definitely say that with the weather on Driveclub looks the nicest of the three. I still don't think the game actually looks all that good without it however, as there's just so much wrong with it in terms of textures, aliasing and so on (I think the game looks very "soupy" a lot of the time without weather effects on), but with them on? I think it's in its own league right now.
Oh c'mon... You'd have to have a special sort of shit PC to put Project Cars' IQ at Driveclub's level. Driveclub's IQ actually bugs me more than the majority of games I own on consoles... some of which aren't even 1080p.
It should be considered in the discussion, because even if we're discounting resolution, there's much about Driveclub's image quality that has been sacrificed in order to provide the rest of the graphical features that people here are praising. Comparing DC's image quality to even FH2's is a stark contrast, to the point where in most situations I find FH2 more pleasing to look at.. let alone comparing it to what many people would be playing in Project Cars. DC could have amazing IQ (and 60fps), but then it would have suffered in other respects, so I don't think it should be ignored. If Driveclub was on PC, then I think we'd all probably be in agreement that it simply looks better than everything else, period. It isn't though, and that's not Project Cars' (or people with beefy PCs) problem.
Anyway, I recall casting my vote for Project Cars earlier in the thread based on that rainy gif in the city track. I think I said something along the lines that I'd re-evaluate my stance if/when Driveclub got its weather patch. Now that its actually out, and I've given it a try, I can definitely say that with the weather on Driveclub looks the nicest of the three. I still don't think the game actually looks all that good without it however, as there's just so much wrong with it in terms of textures, aliasing and so on (I think the game looks very "soupy" a lot of the time without weather effects on), but with them on? I think it's in its own league right now.
Oh c'mon... You'd have to have a special sort of shit PC to put Project Cars' IQ at Driveclub's level. Driveclub's IQ actually bugs me more than the majority of games I own on consoles... some of which aren't even 1080p.
It should be considered in the discussion, because even if we're discounting resolution, there's much about Driveclub's image quality that has been sacrificed in order to provide the rest of the graphical features that people here are praising. Comparing DC's image quality to even FH2's is a stark contrast, to the point where in most situations I find FH2 more pleasing to look at.. let alone comparing it to what many people would be playing in Project Cars. DC could have amazing IQ (and 60fps), but then it would have suffered in other respects, so I don't think it should be ignored. If Driveclub was on PC, then I think we'd all probably be in agreement that it simply looks better than everything else, period. It isn't though, and that's not Project Cars' (or people with beefy PCs) problem.
icecold1983
Member
the 30 frame cap clearly had plenty of headroom, but probly still far off from 60.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
The water drops on the camera in PCars doesn't look realistic to me. The ones in DC even move across the screen when the car moves :O
AbandonedTrolley
Member
That's the thing, we will never really know how close Evo were to 60FPS for Driveclub, all we can assume is that with what they had planned including the weather etc, it just wasn't going to happen at 60FPS and given what they show graphically I would say that it's understandable too. So pre weather they might have been able to hit 60 who knows, but if they then patched in weather and sad oh and btw to get this you get half the frame rate there would be outrage. So they obviously chose 30 and made sure it never fluctuated. For that I'm very happy with Evo making that decision and giving us the best looking racing game out there.
BradleyLove
Member
An important point to consider about Driveclub:
Evo have created what amounts to an environment simulation into which they've placed a driving game. Everthing is rendered and modelled in DC including volumetric clouds, trees, hell even the lightning is modelled and not just a texture. There's real time global illumination being used, weather and humidity is modelled and simulated. I could go on and on and it's important to note there are no skyboxes in DC.
Evo even stated that a "side effect" of their weather simulation was water droplets in the tread of tires. That's the level of detail they've acheived.
So it can be debated all day as to what game "looks" best, but Evo deserve some mad props for the amount of things that are being computed in real time. There's no other game probably that comes close to what Evo are simulating, and certainly no other racer comes close.
Now, whether the computational expense is worth what Evo have done is another debate totally, but FH2, F5 and PCars are nowhere close to DC in terms of environmental simulation.
Evo have created what amounts to an environment simulation into which they've placed a driving game. Everthing is rendered and modelled in DC including volumetric clouds, trees, hell even the lightning is modelled and not just a texture. There's real time global illumination being used, weather and humidity is modelled and simulated. I could go on and on and it's important to note there are no skyboxes in DC.
Evo even stated that a "side effect" of their weather simulation was water droplets in the tread of tires. That's the level of detail they've acheived.
So it can be debated all day as to what game "looks" best, but Evo deserve some mad props for the amount of things that are being computed in real time. There's no other game probably that comes close to what Evo are simulating, and certainly no other racer comes close.
Now, whether the computational expense is worth what Evo have done is another debate totally, but FH2, F5 and PCars are nowhere close to DC in terms of environmental simulation.
icecold1983
Member
driveclub is one of the better consoles games IQ wise IMO. the only console titles that stand far above it are ryse and FC4. ISS and shadowfall are better but only slightly. as for my rig, i have a 980. its not super spec, but its as good as it gets without going mgpu, and driveclub has better IQ than i can achieve in pretty much every modern title that doesnt have working txaa and/or isnt ryse. standard MSAA might as well be a dead technology as it hasnt worked well in any graphically modern title for years. it works very poorly in pcars too, and we all know it takes a LOT of OGSSAA to combat aliasing, hence the need for mgpu as in my previous post.
icecold1983
Member
id put the uncapped framerate hovering between 35 and 45 pre weather patch.
Forza Horizon 2 has a much better IQ than DC, since it's using Forward+ rendering which allows for MSAA and it uses 4xMSAA.
I'm aware that technically Driveclub's IQ solution should place it above the vast majority of other consoles games... however that's simply not what I see on my screen, and seems to be the case for many others as well. Aliasing in Driveclub stands out to me far more than most other console games I have (not quite in Forza 5 territory, but worse than most other games), and I know AF is pretty much never a thing on consoles, but textures in Driveclub frequently remind me of when I'd fuck around with r_picmip values in Quake 3. It simply doesn't look very good regardless of what the actual implementation is.
I'm not as much of a PC gamer these days,
EDIT: I lied...I played Doom 3.
icecold1983
Member
FH2 is better, but its not in the same league as ryse or FC4. i had forgotten about FH2
ill also add advanced warfare as one of the PC titles i can achieve better IQ in, had forgotten about that too. the most most prominent factor for me when it comes to IQ is temporal stability, and in that sense DC is definitely pretty solid.
AMD gpu users have it worse, as they dont even have TXAA in a small handful of titles.
Seems like we have completely difference experiences with the image quality. DC has pretty good IQ from my many hours of playing, especially in motion. The worse aliasing I've found to be on the cars but that also depends on certain lighting conditions. Compared to FH2 it definitely isn't as clean, but it isn't a slouch either and I'm not seeing the "stark contrast."
http://a.pomf.se/dgnutf.jpg
http://a.pomf.se/wkdudv.jpg
http://a.pomf.se/ksygcs.jpe
http://a.pomf.se/guquow.jpe
I'm also not saying to ignore the bad parts of the IQ in DC, I'm saying the comparisons of it to an open platform game is rather bizarre. Same with comparisons of running a game at 4K on a high-end PC to a console game running on a laptop-equivalent CPU. These types of comparisons are ridiculous and doesn't say much about the underlying graphics tech for the games being compared.
FH2 is by default superior to all those other games especially if it's using some form of post processing AA along with 4*MSAA like the first game.
Post process AA simply cannot compare to MSAA unless the game has shader aliasing which MSAA can't help against but the temporal post processing AA can help remove it to some extent, however games these days do not have shader aliasing since they are pretty well made.
Also Facrcry 4 has pretty poor IQ, sure it eliminates jaggies pretty damn good but it has an awful awful amount of ghosting. More than any other game released this gen.
Phreakuency
Banned
The best thing about DriveClub is it looks great all over, with lots of attention to detail.
PCars (I have been a supporter since day 1 and play it quite often after most patches) is very inconsistent. Especially with trackside detail. Or, lack of detail. Many trees look bad, there's lots of flat, low quality textures, empty or low poly tracksides etc.
DC has good looking trees, leaves that blow in the wind and onto the track, litter and plastic bags blowing around, the rain and weather effects are obviously second to none, the environment (trees, rocks etc) also get wet during the storms, rivers and creeks change depending on the weather, lighting can strike objects throughout the track.
PCars (I have been a supporter since day 1 and play it quite often after most patches) is very inconsistent. Especially with trackside detail. Or, lack of detail. Many trees look bad, there's lots of flat, low quality textures, empty or low poly tracksides etc.
DC has good looking trees, leaves that blow in the wind and onto the track, litter and plastic bags blowing around, the rain and weather effects are obviously second to none, the environment (trees, rocks etc) also get wet during the storms, rivers and creeks change depending on the weather, lighting can strike objects throughout the track.
icecold1983
Member
FC4 IQ on consoles is amazing(its pretty bad on pc). theres a tiny bit of ghosting, barely noticeable without inspecting individual screens. a very worthwhile price to pay for the complete elimination of 98% of all types of aliasing at a rendering cost thats probably not much higher than standard smaa.
FH2 using msaa was a poor choice in resource usage IMO. most of the environment is organic landscapes covered in alpha textures and therefor MSAA honestly doesnt benefit much. alphas are extremely expensive to AA without using a temporal method. the foliage in FH2 shimmers like crazy in motion, much worse than DC.
I disagree, it's not amazing. Something like Infamous' AA and Ryse' AA are far better and have less artifacts.
Many things contribute towards IQ, eliminating jaggies is just one of them. Farcry 4 does it pretty well but it drops balls on others. The very nature of FC4's AA is such that it blurs the image and then sharpens it, leading to an image that looks sharp yet lacks fine details this is how HRAA works. It's mentioned in Ubisoft's own slides.
.
Look at this picture for example The image itself appears sharp yet the details in the rocks are unclear and the leaves look blurred. Open these images in separate tab for full size.
And this is not tiny amount of ghosting by any means. Especially when you have moving flags, wires, ropes, leaves and foliage everywhere. That small ghosting affects the entire screen.
icecold1983
Member
cant see your image, but you should rly post a video if you want to demonstrate highly visible ghosting.
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_our_ps4_videos_of_far_cry_4-16054_en.html
not very noticeable at all IMO
My images are from Eurogamer's website (digitalfoundry), not sure why you can't open them, I will quote them now.
The Flipquad (FQ) in HRAA is basically modern day Quincunx (although slightly less blurry) with ghosting. Ubisoft even admitted in their slides that the solution will result in the art department complaining as it blurs out the details.
icecold1983
Member
oh please, HRAA is leagues ahead of quincox
FlutterPuffs
Member
PCars?
Yeah, number plate is a give away.
Yea, seems like we do seem to be having a very different experience with each. If I were to make a list, there would be quite a few games sitting between FH2 and DC in regards to how clear and defined each looks. I don't think it's really worth talking aliasing here, as I'm now looking at your pics on a work monitor that looks nothing like my plasma TV, the images have plenty of compression, and much like Forza 5, the crawl caused by aliasing is far more noticeable in motion (aliasing on a still image rarely bothers me). In regards to the textures tho... in the two pictures you posted, the first one has the asphalt road that the car is on, blend into... something? I can't even reliably determine what sort of surface it's depicting. Same for the rocky incline to the right of the car (which almost looks like mouldable clay), all the way up to the mountains in the background. It all just kinda looks like stuff, without enough definition to clearly determine what it is I'm actually seeing. Compared to the daytime image of Horizon 2 you posted, there doesn't appear to be a single inch of that image where I'm not pretty confident of what I'm looking at, and what it appears to be made up of. Your second Driveclub pic is similar in terms of not really being able to determine much of what it's made up of, however with the weather effects added, none of that really matters anymore, because the effects of the rain on the windshield and the puddles on the road do enough to distract my attention from bothering to look at anything else, so the effect works.
I kinda agree with you that comparing PC games to console games is mostly pointless due to the lack of any real limits on the PC side. Bringing a maxed out Crysis 3 to a fight between Halo 4 and Killzone 3 is as pointless as it sounds, and the thread really should have been limited to consoles only, if we're concerned primarily about the technical merits of each game. However when arguing that Driveclub looks better than PC Project Cars, you're pretty much accepting the comparison and all that comes with it imo. If we start disregarding what the resulting image actually looks like, and only focus on the tech being pushed, then we could get a game running at 480p, but pushing all sorts of BS, and we'd somehow be obligated to crown it king even if it wasn't all that pleasant to actually look at in motion.
Agenda pushing.
dannethmps
Neo Member
Amen
nkarafo
Member
I can agree to that, yes.
Windom Earle
Member
The main difference between Drive Club and the other racers in this thread is that the lighting and the shaders make it look real. Project Cars, Forza, etc. still look very "gamey" and dated in comparison.
Also I don't get the complaints about IQ, it is excellent now and has improved since launch. I don't see much in terms of jaggies in the game anymore. And this is coming from a PC gamer.
Yep, MSAA is pretty outdated as its coverage is too limited for modern games. And of course it comes at a great performance loss.
Also I don't get the complaints about IQ, it is excellent now and has improved since launch. I don't see much in terms of jaggies in the game anymore. And this is coming from a PC gamer.
Yep, MSAA is pretty outdated as its coverage is too limited for modern games. And of course it comes at a great performance loss.
Um... now you're saying you were actually referring to something specific. Now it just sounds like you're backtracking :/ You made clear broad statements:
"shadows actually never look like that. only shadows from the car are soft."
Implying that all shadows should look like the one underneath the car when 1. shadows underneath the car are affected by motion blur and 2. shadows in real life CAN look like the ones that you highlighted in that particular screenshot. Here I whipped up a collage of real-world examples just for you:
" it would be funny if it actually is using PCF"
You didn't say PS3-style there and correct me if I'm wrong but even if they DID use PCF, it does not necessarily mean hard shadows.
My main point of contention was basically you saying the tree shadows should look like the one underneath the car in the PCars screenshot and your liberal use of the term PCF to mean hard, stencil-like shadows.
TheAdmiester
Member
Well that just about settles it. Nice examples.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
It's good to see the Driveclub weather patch really got this thread's blood flowing again after how disappointingly quiet it was at the DC/FH2 launches.
How anyone can try so hard to claim PCars looks better than DC is beyond me. In terms of AA, AF and resolution, PCars would definitely win in these departments because it is running on a platform with infinite power hampered only by budget.
But in terms of shading, lighting and environmental detail, DC blows the competition out of the water. Looking at previous posts and pics, I don't get how anyone can claim PCars looks better when it lacks PBR, has blocky shadows for foliage and low resolution SSR. DC, on the other hand, makes good use of PBR, soft shadows and real time global illumination. Let's not forget DC's unrivalled weather effects....
But in terms of shading, lighting and environmental detail, DC blows the competition out of the water. Looking at previous posts and pics, I don't get how anyone can claim PCars looks better when it lacks PBR, has blocky shadows for foliage and low resolution SSR. DC, on the other hand, makes good use of PBR, soft shadows and real time global illumination. Let's not forget DC's unrivalled weather effects....
No prob! Thing is, people have it in their head as to what's photo-realistic and what isn't based on specific aesthetics that's subconciously appealing to them but that doesn't mean a tree or track that's of a slight hue difference isn't realistic at all. People also quote stock photos all the time as the definition of realistic color/lighting values when they don't realise a ton of those photos are edited from blander-looking raw images before they're uploaded.
It's also why Kazunori Yamauchi went for visuals that mimicked the best and most aesthetically pleasing conditions with GT5. And why people just LOVE overcast conditions for photomode pics (soft diffused shadows and duller contrast are almost harder be nitpicked)
It's a perfect example of why I LOVE console development. A standard spec (and of course talent plays a part here) often allows for developers to implement visual features without having to worry for the lowest common denominator.
TheAdmiester
Member
Yeah, I already knew for a fact that the tree shadow thing was nonsense. I even posted a picture myself somewhere but the guy was having none of it. Both DC and pCARS nail the "boring sunny day with nothing special" look, I fail to see how the pictures I posted of the Ginetta on Bathurst were so "unrealistically lit".
As for the Yamauchi thing, it makes perfect sense. Like I already said a lot of conditions look very boring. When I play DC and pCARS I rarely ever set the time to midday without any weather, I always either have it rainy or at sunrise/sunset. Real races don't normally start at those times so why not do it where I can make it happen?
And there are still many examples where the game is clearly inferior compared to the competition. It does all those things but everything is still limited by the hardware and just kinda there. I'm not saying that it's not a great looking game but it's definitely not above everything else right now in all situations.
Honestly, no, DC has failed to produce photorealistic images, despite of course having impressive tech under the hood, the art style is not photorealistic at all, it looks just as gamey as others. Gran Turismo still holds the crown for nailing the realistic color palette and the look of cars under different lighting conditions. Not a single image from DC or Forza gave me that impression. PC is probably to the closest to Gran Turismo's level but lack subtlety and half the time looks gamey as well. All of this brings to me to the fact that Kaz needs to hurry the hell up and show us something running on the ps4.
It is funny how all these 'in game' shots are from angles you cant play from. Just coincidence I guess...
I have a build of pCARS from about one month ago. Apart from the fact that is inst anywhere near finished (which I was very surprised at, they were NEVER launching this year, no way) it doesn't look that great either. I want to know where the magical internet bullshot toggle is.
nkarafo
Member
Its impressive how GT series started looking realistic enough since GT3 on PS2..
"Everything else"? Aside from PCars, what else do you think looks better than DC?
I also think it's ridiculously hypocritical for people to bitch about not seeing "real gameplay" pics of DC, then continue to show only cherry-picked photo mode pics from PCars. So far I've seen ONE in-game pic of PCars in this thread, and it's been torn apart for looking like shit. So let's see some more to back up these claims of its utter superiority.
I think Kaz Yamauchi has a degree in photography or something and in the making of GT4 he said his aim is to recreate reality as closely as possible.
gundamkyoukai
Member
This is non sense talk DC lighting alone makes it look more realistic than any other racing game \ most games .
Then when you add in time of day , cloud condition , weather effects just makes it better .
All you have to do is take pics of DC with a car in different conditions to see that .
Of course GT7 might out do it but they going for 60fps so it going to be harder.
Yep, being exclusive to one platform also helps the visual features to be implemented much easier since the devs only have to work around the bottlenecks of that specific platform. I can't wait to see PS4 exclusives from other first party studios. And if the leap from 1st year games to end of gen games is anywhere close to the leap on PS3, minds will be blown
I don't really get your point. Besides, I never said DC was graphically better than PC in every possible way. PC on a high end rig easily wins in AA and resolution. But like I mentioned earlier, DC has PBR and real time global illumination. So while DC does not blow the competition out of the water in all aspects, there are more advanced graphical features in DC which makes it the better looking game of the two IMO
Yeah whatever mate, not once has DC managed to make me question whether the pic is real or game. Still happens when I go to GT's photo mode threads.
DC looks great, but not realistic.
Similar threads
- Poll