Support NeoGAF

[Lazy8s]

The visual design of the Gran Turismo games captures the hues, camera angles, and cinematography of photorealism with frightening mastery. The technology ultimately hinders the graphics, though, as the texture alaising issues too often dispel its suspension of disbelief and the field rendering leaves it lacking.

It's a shame that most of the games that can claim a photorealisitc resemblance only do so in non-playable angles... Virtua Tennis for DC being one of the few exceptions.

In the casual sense, the term "fully modeled" refers to a detail which is geometrically constructed. All of the ridges, crevice modeling, shadows, and detail of that canyon is just in the texture maps they applied to the background, but the limited view that the player would have of a canyon so distant doesn't require that it be fully modeled to still look acceptably convincing during play.

cobragt3:

Gt4 has a great case of global illumination

Global illumination simulates the lighting on objects that is being reflected from the other objects in the world and not just coming directly from the light source. It's understandable that modern consoles wouldn't be able to cope with the calculations necessary to account for light's interactions with the whole set of pertinent world objects, so it's no failing on Gran Turismo 4's part that it's not actually simulating global illumination.

 

[mrklaw]

I agree that GT4 is the best looking game with cars in to date.

Arguments about not using *accurate* shading and lighting are irrelevant when you look with your eyes at the screen, and see what they have done. In this case

fake lighting and shading >> accurate lighting and shading

Again, it ain't what you do its the way that you do it. How have people not worked that out yet?


And I absolutely agree with BeOnEdge about the cameras. They are a league above any other racing game, but have been since at least GT3, possibly earlier. Every time I play a new racing game and watch the replay, I hope that they have the cameras sorted out, but they never do - they are usually just locked on target and track the car with unerring accuracy, which breaks the illusion of reality.

You can have the most gorgeous graphics ever, but if the camera is wrong, they just don't look real.

The whole point of videogames is that they are an illusion. There are lots of little things that create the whole illusion, and each has a contribution to make. Xbox has introduced technology that hasn't been possible so far, but that can sometimes make people lazy - assuming that sheer brute force will win the day. Thats not automatically right.

I watched Casablanca last night on TCM. The airplane at the end still looks real to me, even though I know its a miniature, surrounded by midgets to fool the audience. But it works.

 

[Jonnyram]

Wow, that does look photorealistic. Can you race these around too?

 

[Gek54]

Yeah I guess, they only go about 5mph.

 

[Kiriku]

:lol That's not in-game, is it? Seriously.

 

[Gek54]

Nah, but its funny some of you all could not tell if it was in-game or not. It is the cherry picker that Dopey was referring to as the machine they used to take pictures....I presume.

 

[cobragt3]

Gt4 does not use photos for the canyon. That's a model, they recreated the canyon and if someone can show me a canyon that looks exactly like the model in gt4, them I might take you serious. PD took photos of the real canyon, various parts of it for reference and made their own canyon.
And since you all are so good at picking out what texture uses photos, you might be able to tell me what texture in this model uses photos

If you can tell me what texture uses photos, I'll tell you are right and be done with this whole 3d canyon bis but if you can't, you shouldn't be talking on this matter.

 

[Jonnyram]

The chains on the drawbridge?

 

[FightyF]

Yea I am, do you have proof?
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/cobragt/topgearscan.jpg
copy and paste only


http://ps2.ign.com/mail/2004-02-23.html
Read the first part with canyon in the title

I can't see that pic, plus the mail talks about the skybox, which could be a photo.

Since you are so smart at picking out what uses photos, tell me what texture in that model uses a photo, if you answer correctly, I wont say anything on this ever.

Considering that the pic isn't of GT4, what's the point?

Photos aren't made up of polygons and wouldn't have seams. Burns, doesn't it?

I like how you referred to m0dus as a "stupid fuck", because this post is up there on the retarded scale. Photos used for textures. What's so hard about that concept?

Textures are slapped ONTO polygons.

Ever heard of a neat word named reference? Those were reference pics. They didn't use them to put them in the game :| There are no photos used in gt4

WTF? Most games used photo references...and the point that PD made by using photos almost directly was that the more unprocessed the photos are, the more realistic it will seem, with basic lighting techniques.

You have no clue!

I'm reading more of AlphaSnake's banter...shut up because you are embarrasing yourself. We aren't talking about how the skybox may or may not be a photo, we are talking about how the game was TEXTURED!

I'm talking to kids here!

 

[cobragt3]

Gt4 doesnt use UVW. The surrounding isn't wrapped around the track. The grass in that 3d model is from a photo, this just tells me you all couldn't tell photo from hand made textures.

 

[Insertia]

Yes GT4 uses photo referenced textures, and so do 95% of ALL videogames. Including, PGR1&2, RSC1&2, GT3, Forza, Resident Evil 4, MGS3, Wanda, Zelda GCN, ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect. I could go on and on. Every game that has a realistic look likely has photo referenced textures. The texture artist simply grab their digital cameras and take pics, edit in photoshop, apply to UV. This has been the workflow since, forever. Why are you people acting as if this is new?

Is this the new attempt at trying to downplay a GT games graphics? First it was 'bah, that's a replay, replay uses a different engine', then, 'bah, it may be realtime, but there are filters making it look better', then it was just 'bah, replay isn't representative of ingame graphics' then 'it's teh cameras!' now it's 'oh blame it on teh photo referenced textures that every racer since the invention of 3d racers has used'.

 

[Jonnyram]

Gt4 doesnt use UVW. The surrounding isn't wrapped around the track. The grass in that 3d model is from a photo, this just tells me you all couldn't tell photo from hand made textures.

The grass was too obvious... it seemed like a trick question

 

[FightyF]

Yes GT4 uses photo referenced textures, and so do 95% of ALL videogames. Including, PGR1&2, RSC1&2, GT3, Forza, Resident Evil 4, MGS3, Wanda, Zelda GCN, ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect. I could go on and on. Every game that has a realistic look likely has photo referenced textures. The texture artist simply grab their digital cameras and take pics, edit in photoshop, apply to UV. This has been the workflow since, forever. Why are you people acting as if this is new?

No one said it was new. Plus, you didn't factor in the fact that rather than referencing photos, actual photos were used representing one time and day of the track. So the workflow is a bit different. If you were say, designing a HL or UT 2004 level of your house (say you make the interior to be like how it is at night time), a similar comparison is using photos for your walls, floor and ceilings, with the lights on. Then, in the game, you set your ambient lighting to 100% white, and slap the textures onto the walls/floor/ceiling. Now you didn't do anything as far as the level's lighting goes, but it looks photorealistic. This were the workflow differs, as in most games the referenced photos are slightly changed to take into account that you want to use it in many different lighting circumstances, where in GT you'll only have ONE time of day for that track's textures.

That was the point being made.

Even photographed textures used for many CS levels have their brightness and contrast changed, plus noise is added to them, so that they are more robust and you are able to use them under many different lighting circumstances.

You know, I should make a level like that to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

Is this the new attempt at trying to downplay a GT games graphics? First it was 'bah, that's a replay, replay uses a different engine', then, 'bah, it may be realtime, but there are filters making it look better', then it was just 'bah, replay isn't representative of ingame graphics' then 'it's teh cameras!' now it's 'oh blame it on teh photo referenced textures that every racer since the invention of 3d racers has used'.

This is the second time in this thread someone opened their mouth and made themselves look a bit ridiculous. It could have been avoided if these people read the thread a bit more carefully. Ah well, we all learn from our mistakes.