Rant Topic: GT5's mediocre visuals

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"]

[QUOTE="killa4lyfe"]

I don't even know where you got this picture from, no sources, no nothing. :?

P.S. I love how you like comparing a game running on this/last years hardware to a game that has hardware from 5 years ago and still can pull its own weight.

FIipMode

[QUOTE="Delsage"]There is no point in telling you anything else cause neither you nor Squid listen. Facts are facts and many people in here have provided them to you. Yet all you keep saying is Dirt 2 and F! on the PC. If that is your excuse for overexerting a game that got a mediocre score than that is just trolling. In fact I bet you don't have F1 for any platform. windsquid9000

Let's try this:

Watch this video. Look at the guard rails. A curvy line with grooves painted on

Boot up GT5P (on your own PS3, not a video). Switch to the hood view. You'll be greeted with pixellated and undefined reflections

For trees, look at a GT5 screenshot and do your best to imagine the trees with slightly lower fidelity and jaggies

For shaders, look at the showroom cars in GT5P (on your PS3, not a video) Look for a slight "smudginess" to the surface

For buildings and landmarks, GT5P might do, but I'm not sure.

That's the best I can do short of renting a bus, driving around the country, and ferrying all of the skeptics to a participating Best Buy. It's kinda hard to post sources when you're referring to your own experiences, not someone else's.

Now you use offscreen videos as proof? You couldn't even answer FlipMode's question which was perfectly legit. Every time someone asks you to post a source you either:

A. Completely ignore them.

or

B. Post links to offscreen vids and state "Your opinion" which is often wrong.

This thread really needs to stop and I want you to know that you are reminding me an awful lot of a user named Obamian who was on here a while ago. Though he got banned for trolling in almost the same exact way you are now.

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"]

[QUOTE="Delsage"]There is no point in telling you anything else cause neither you nor Squid listen. Facts are facts and many people in here have provided them to you. Yet all you keep saying is Dirt 2 and F! on the PC. If that is your excuse for overexerting a game that got a mediocre score than that is just trolling. In fact I bet you don't have F1 for any platform. Delsage

Let's try this:

Watch this video. Look at the guard rails. A curvy line with grooves painted on

Boot up GT5P (on your own PS3, not a video). Switch to the hood view. You'll be greeted with pixellated and undefined reflections

For trees, look at a GT5 screenshot and do your best to imagine the trees with slightly lower fidelity and jaggies

For shaders, look at the showroom cars in GT5P (on your PS3, not a video) Look for a slight "smudginess" to the surface

For buildings and landmarks, GT5P might do, but I'm not sure.

That's the best I can do short of renting a bus, driving around the country, and ferrying all of the skeptics to a participating Best Buy. It's kinda hard to post sources when you're referring to your own experiences, not someone else's.

Now you use offscreen videos as proof? You couldn't even answer FlipMode's question which was perfectly legit. Every time someone asks you to post a source you either:

A. Completely ignore them.

or

B. Post links to offscreen vids and state "Your opinion" which is often wrong.

This thread really needs to stop and I want you to know that you are reminding me an awful lot of a user named Obamian who was on here a while ago. Though he got banned for trolling in almost the same exact way you are now.

A. I can't respond to every post. I do the best I can.

B. I only posted an off screen video once... Which was now. The only other video I posted was a comparison showing that compressed videos aren't very good for use in comparisons.

Wait what? A picture doesn't give you a fair idea of how a game looks. A video of the game running in front of you might tho. :|

killa4lyfe

BFBC2.Why waste the money to get a good enough rig to play the game at the maximum settings when the minimum look better? Or at least that's what a small, compressed video may lead you to believe.

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="Delsage"]

I think all people should stop posting in this thread as obviously the TC and Hakkai are a couple of trolls out for a good laugh. They are trying to downgrade a superb game while calling other mediocre racers such as F1 and Dirt 2 more superb looking.

It is an obvious troll thread and those who are being baited into it as I was are silly for responding to such people. Please let the thread die and stop posting, if anything perhaps Hakkai and Squid can then have a long conversation about how much they love games that aren't even out yet all the while bashing a game they haven't even played.

Also I just confirmed from a Best Buy that is on that supposed "list" that there is NO GT5 set up going on right now. So the TC hasn't played the game, and those that believe him are more than likely lemmings that want to believe his words, or people whom are very naive.

Delsage

It is true that Dirt 2 PC and F1 2010 PC have better graphics than GT5.

You are in denial to think otherwise.

Actually there is no point in telling you anything because you will not listen.

Facts are facts and the PC version of F1 2010 and Dirt 2 are better at graphics on the PC.

And I do have F1 2010 those screenshots I posted are all mine. And I have Dirt 2 too.

Many people already agree with me that GT5 can't beat the PC racers like F1 2010 graphically.

Sure GT5 might be one of the best graphics in consoles racers.

You must not own a gaming PC that can play those games I mentioned at high to max settings.

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"][QUOTE="FIipMode"] Where is the original shots you used for this comparison?Delsage

I was wrong, you don't sound like Obamian. You are Obamian. I think this should help result in the ending of this thread.

The last two are really where the lack of exactness come into play. The texture for the "other game" is ever so slightly higher res than what you would see in the real game. The texture scaling is incremental, so that's the best I could do. GT5's texture is pretty accurate, though. As for the reflections, I forgot to sub-patch the spheres to make the distorting of the image smoother, but the quality itself is pretty accurate, if not a little worse (depends on the game). The reflection for GT5 is actually a little better. I couldn't get the resolution any lower.

[QUOTE="Blaze-Agent"]

[QUOTE="erglesmergle"]

The graphics are VERY inconsistent. At times it look somewhat photorealistic. At times they look very good. At times they look Forza-ish. And at times theyre just bad.

Not to mention, the 2D trees. The reason for 2D trees isnt that PD decided to put attention to other areas. its that the engine cant handle it. Fact.

erglesmergle

Yes it can. As a matter of fact. tell me what racing game you have played where 3d trees make or break the racing experience. I'll be waiting

Its not hard to model 3D trees and put them in a repeating order. The fact that they didnt do it means that the engine cant handle it. And understand that Kazunori Yamauchi cares a lot about detail and perfection.

You know what 1000 BEAUTIFUL cars and UGLY 2D trees means? Inconsistency. A man like Kazunori Yamauchi wouldnt want any inconsistency. But he had no choice. You saying they simply dont care about 2D/3D trees because its the racing that matters? Please.

[QUOTE="Delsage"]

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"] I made them. The comparison was made to give a general idea of the differences. It is by no means exact.windsquid9000

I was wrong, you don't sound like Obamian. You are Obamian. I think this should help result in the ending of this thread.

The last two are really where the lack of exactness come into play. The texture for the "other game" is ever so slightly higher res than what you would see in the real game. The texture scaling is incremental, so that's the best I could do. GT5's texture is pretty accurate, though. As for the reflections, I forgot to sub-patch the spheres to make the distorting of the image smoother, but the quality itself is pretty accurate, if not a little worse (depends on the game). The reflection for GT5 is actually a little better. I couldn't get the resolution any lower.

Wow... what a wonderful use of developers time, "Oh this guardrail looks great!"... "shame only a crap driver will be able to get close enough to appreciate it!".

JohnF111

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]Wow... what a wonderful use of developers time, "Oh this guardrail looks great!"... "shame only a crap driver will be able to get close enough to appreciate it!".

windsquid9000

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]Wow... what a wonderful use of developers time, "Oh this guardrail looks great!"... "shame only a crap driver will be able to get close enough to appreciate it!".

JohnF111

[spoiler] I didn't make the logo, I just edited it. The original is from Classic Game Room. [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="windsquid9000"]The point is to show the difference in level of detail. As I stated when I first posted the comparison, I couldn't replicate everything. The guard rails, textures and reflections were all I could do [with my limited resources] to represent the level of detail of objects in a raw form.

windsquid9000

Still it's not a great representation of a squid... I would clearly indicate this but i have very limited resources... Annoying isn't it? Just wait for the game to be finished instead of complaining about pics from an unfinished build, and yes the demos are not full or finished game. First you said it was a finished build, then it was an E3 demo(which was very very early) and now it's gone to guard-rails and very distant objects.

JohnF111

you gotta love it when people try to bring up games that are running at 30 fps on the same or similr hardware with half as many cars on screen with either no weather or predetermnied weather thats static whos daytime lighting cant even change to try and troll gt5i_am_interested

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]you gotta love it when people try to bring up games that are running at 30 fps on the same or similr hardware with half as many cars on screen with either no weather or predetermnied weather thats static whos daytime lighting cant even change to try and troll gt5windsquid9000

yeah, a lack of detail in certains with extra detail in areas that probaly arent found in other games, who cares

im watching some footage of this f1 game you like to mention, why isnt the water being splashed dynamically across the "camera" as the driver in front of the player swirves from side to side in front of the of the player?

despite all the praise the game's visuals get, they are not without flaw.

windsquid9000

i guess ill kill myself if this is the only game this has ever happened to

yeah, a lack of detail in certains with extra detail in areas that probaly arent found in other games, who cares

i_am_interested

I made a thread about this a while ago. Apparently, many people do.

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"]

despite all the praise the game's visuals get, they are not without flaw.

i_am_interested

i guess ill kill myself if this is the only game this has ever happened to

"There are games that beat it in enough areas, and to a big enough extent that it can be argued that they are better looking games." I was saying that it's not uniformly better; A game with the most detailed cars, the sharpest reflections, most detailed environments, and so on. A quick look at the game says otherwise.

I made a thread about this a while ago. Apparently, many people do.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"]

despite all the praise the game's visuals get, they are not without flaw.

windsquid9000

i guess ill kill myself if this is the only game this has ever happened to

"There are games that beat it in enough areas, and to a big enough extent that it can be argued that they are better looking games." I was saying that it's not uniformly better; A game with the most detailed cars, the sharpest reflections, most detailed environments, and so on. A quick look at the game says otherwise.

yeah, many trolls care, trolls that probabaly play those same games that exist with the same characteristics that i mentioned above

how many of these same people in the thread you made "a while ago" cared that the games THEY PLAYED had half as many cars or no chase interiors or maybe played at half the frame rate or played with static weather or predetermined weather or maybe even no weather, or predetermined damage or baked damage? or games that had races that all took place in alaska because its always daytime?

its funny how people have to compare a game running on hardware from 5 years ago to games running on modern hardware in order to prove a point

feel free to post links, especially in this thread, to people saying that gt5 has the most detailed environments and the sharpest reflections (especially in gameplay) or even posts that say that gt5 has no "flaws" - that is unless youre putting words in gt5s fans mouths

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"]

I made a thread about this a while ago. Apparently, many people do.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

i guess ill kill myself if this is the only game this has ever happened to

i_am_interested

"There are games that beat it in enough areas, and to a big enough extent that it can be argued that they are better looking games." I was saying that it's not uniformly better; A game with the most detailed cars, the sharpest reflections, most detailed environments, and so on. A quick look at the game says otherwise.

yeah, many trolls care, trolls that probabaly play those same games that exist with the same characteristics that i mentioned above

how many of these same people in the thread you made "a while ago" cared that the games THEY PLAYED had half as many cars or no chase interiors or maybe played at half the frame rate or played with static weather or predetermined weather or maybe even no weather, or predetermined damage or baked damage? or games that had races that all took place in alaska because its always daytime?

its funny how people have to compare a game running on hardware from 5 years ago to games running on modern hardware in order to prove a point

feel free to post links, especially in this thread, to people saying that gt5 has the most detailed environments and the sharpest reflections (especially in gameplay) or even posts that say that gt5 has no "flaws" - that is unless youre putting words in gt5s fans mouths

Looks at F1 2010 PC pictures......nope not sure what your are talking about.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="windsquid9000"] The next sentence:

"There are games that beat it in enough areas, and to a big enough extent that it can be argued that they are better looking games." I was saying that it's not uniformly better; A game with the most detailed cars, the sharpest reflections, most detailed environments, and so on. A quick look at the game says otherwise.

Hakkai007

yeah, many trolls care, trolls that probabaly play those same games that exist with the same characteristics that i mentioned above

how many of these same people in the thread you made "a while ago" cared that the games THEY PLAYED had half as many cars or no chase interiors or maybe played at half the frame rate or played with static weather or predetermined weather or maybe even no weather, or predetermined damage or baked damage? or games that had races that all took place in alaska because its always daytime?

its funny how people have to compare a game running on hardware from 5 years ago to games running on modern hardware in order to prove a point

feel free to post links, especially in this thread, to people saying that gt5 has the most detailed environments and the sharpest reflections (especially in gameplay) or even posts that say that gt5 has no "flaws" - that is unless youre putting words in gt5s fans mouths

Looks at F1 2010 PC pictures......nope not sure what your are talking about.

not sure huh?

is that what it takes for developers to compete with polypohony? more advanced hardware? im real impressed

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

yeah, many trolls care, trolls that probabaly play those same games that exist with the same characteristics that i mentioned above

how many of these same people in the thread you made "a while ago" cared that the games THEY PLAYED had half as many cars or no chase interiors or maybe played at half the frame rate or played with static weather or predetermined weather or maybe even no weather, or predetermined damage or baked damage? or games that had races that all took place in alaska because its always daytime?

its funny how people have to compare a game running on hardware from 5 years ago to games running on modern hardware in order to prove a point

feel free to post links, especially in this thread, to people saying that gt5 has the most detailed environments and the sharpest reflections (especially in gameplay) or even posts that say that gt5 has no "flaws" - that is unless youre putting words in gt5s fans mouths

i_am_interested

Looks at F1 2010 PC pictures......nope not sure what your are talking about.

Well if GT5 fans weren't saying that their racing game had the best graphics out of all racing games then I wouldn't have to bring up the PC.

Stop playing your consolite pity card.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"][QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Looks at F1 2010 PC pictures......nope not sure what your are talking about.

Hakkai007

Well if GT5 weren't saying that their racing game had the best graphics out of all racing games then I wouldn't have to bring up the PC.

Stop playing your consolite pity card.

dont know what im talking about huh? i sure love looking at those f1 interiors

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"] "its funny how people have to compare a game running on hardware from 5 years ago to games running on modern hardware in order to prove a point" not sure huh? is that what it takes for developers to compete with polypohony? directx 10+ hardware?i_am_interested

Well if GT5 weren't saying that their racing game had the best graphics out of all racing games then I wouldn't have to bring up the PC.

Stop playing your consolite pity card.

dont know what im talking about huh? i sure love looking at those f1 interiors

I meant the fans.

And well duh there isn't much to an interior in an F1 car.

But what is there is high res quality.

The reflections are immensely better and look wonderful at much higher res.

The backgrounds are well detailed and lighting is realistic.

F1 2010 PC has better graphics than GT5, it shouldn't be surprising since it is on PC.

Just go back to playing the console graphics racing king game title and leave the Better graphics of the PC alone.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Well if GT5 weren't saying that their racing game had the best graphics out of all racing games then I wouldn't have to bring up the PC.

Stop playing your consolite pity card.

Hakkai007

dont know what im talking about huh? i sure love looking at those f1 interiors

I meant the fans.

And well duh there isn't much to an interior in an F1 car.

But what is there is high res quality.

The reflections are immensely better and look wonderful at much higher res.

The backgrounds are well detailed and lighting is realistic.

F1 2010 PC has better graphics than GT5, it shouldn't be surprising since it is on PC.

Just go back to playing the console graphics racing king game title and leave the Better graphics of the PC alone.

I for one first at once said "Enviornments mean nothing, you are racing after all your should be paying attention to the road".

After watching a few videos of DiRT 2 and playing it for myself, I retract that statement and give me two strikes for being such a damn idiot.

Trees look like crap, Houses look like crap, Rails look like crap and no snow tracks from tires?

Im am very disappointed, I was hoping for this to be my first serious venture into the racing genre.

I'll wait for the reviews.

I for one first at once said "Enviornments mean nothing, you are racing after all your should be paying attention to the road".

After watching a few videos of DiRT 2 and playing it for myself, I retract that statement and give me two strikes for being such a damn idiot.

Trees look like crap, Houses look like crap, Rails look like crap and no snow tracks from tires?

Im am very disappointed, I was hoping for this to be my first serious venture into the racing genre.

I'll wait for the reviews.

[QUOTE="i_am_interested"]

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

Well if GT5 weren't saying that their racing game had the best graphics out of all racing games then I wouldn't have to bring up the PC.

Stop playing your consolite pity card.

Hakkai007

dont know what im talking about huh? i sure love looking at those f1 interiors

I meant the fans.

And well duh there isn't much to an interior in an F1 car.

But what is there is high res quality.

The reflections are immensely better and look wonderful at much higher res.

The backgrounds are well detailed and lighting is realistic.

F1 2010 PC has better graphics than GT5, it shouldn't be surprising since it is on PC.

Just go back to playing the console graphics racing king game title and leave the Better graphics of the PC alone.

The cars in F1 looked nowhere near as good as any of the GT5 pics posted this is hillarious at this point and they dont even render the interiors.

This thread is disappointing to say the least.
TC intentionally sensationalizes his title (mediocre!?.. really?) to bring in the fanboys.
Fanboys from every side brings terrible posts.
Some dude brings up PC games in every single one of his posts (lol comparing PC to consoles...)

It's all pathetic. Let's clear things up.

GT5 runs at 1280x1080p with a horizontal upscale to 1080p @ 60fps with 2xAA. 1280x720p runs with 4xAA. Kaz has mentioned FPS will drop "slightly" with 15 other cars on screen IF water is basically splattering all over you. While technically it's not "locked" that is damn close enough.

PC games vs console games. Herp derp. Let me herp a little harder. I run my Dirt 2 in DX11 mode max settings. Comparing resolution and AA/AF to a console game is dumb. Plane and simple. PS3 is using 2005 technology. PC DX11 standards are 2009 standards, and require over 4 times the amount of RAM (PS3 has 512 mbs of RAM, which includes both system and gpu ram). Any comparison is dumb and pointless. That said IF a comparison could be made, GT5 has better detail than Dirt 2. The reflections may look better on Dirt 2 / F1 2010, but the polygonal detail in the vehicles themselves from GT5 trump anything those other games have. You can say the trees are animated, in which they are, but we can bring the fact that there is a wind system in GT5, which dynamically carries the dust and smoke. Let's ignore the fact that as a more intense simulator, GT5 also processes more physics variables than Dirt 2, all while using inferior hardware.

All that being said, GT5 isn't perfect, the 2D trees are meh, but unless closely inspected, look photo realistic. Both GT5 AND FM3 use 2D AND 3D trees. Get over it. I'd rather have a better racing experience or overall graphical upgrade (for example, a better lighting engine) than 3D trees, which I WON'T be staring at. GT5 uses polygonal rumble strips, while FM3 and GRID use just textures + normal maps. Does that make the game look terrible? No. Too much nitpicking... which leads me to one word.

Demo. It's not representative of the final build, not to mention is an OLD build. As all the GTPlanet users (including myself) have noted and realized, the many builds shown are from older builds of the game. For example, the build in TGS doesn't have tiremarks, while the one at GC did. Just wait for the game to come out with direct feed footage, and we'll all see once and for all.

I was at Gamestop the other day and I stopped to play what I thought was GT5p since the gfx were a little underwhelming(still great) compared to bullshots I've been seeing, but apparently it was GT5. I'll have to stop by tomorrow and take a few more laps to verify.

My honest opinion is that it's not really a step above FM3 when it comes to image quality, but I'm well aware that it's doing a lot impressive things graphically like 1280x1080 2xAA, 16 cars, weather, and so on. Content-wise it's much like Reach. Just so much good stuff it's hard to pass up.

It's not the end-all supercomputer, ultra blaster graphics that people were making it out to be. Same thing that happened with Forza 3. Oh well, gameplay>gfx.

This thread is disappointing to say the least.
TC intentionally sensationalizes his title (mediocre!?.. really?) to bring in the fanboys.
Fanboys from every side brings terrible posts.
Some dude brings up PC games in every single one of his posts (lol comparing PC to consoles...)

It's all pathetic. Let's clear things up.

GT5 runs at 1280x1080p with a horizontal upscale to 1080p @ 60fps with 2xAA. 1280x720p runs with 4xAA. Kaz has mentioned FPS will drop "slightly" with 15 other cars on screen IF water is basically splattering all over you. While technically it's not "locked" that is damn close enough.

PC games vs console games. Herp derp. Let me herp a little harder. I run my Dirt 2 in DX11 mode max settings. Comparing resolution and AA/AF to a console game is dumb. Plane and simple. PS3 is using 2005 technology. PC DX11 standards are 2009 standards, and require over 4 times the amount of RAM (PS3 has 512 mbs of RAM, which includes both system and gpu ram). Any comparison is dumb and pointless. That said IF a comparison could be made, GT5 has better detail than Dirt 2. The reflections may look better on Dirt 2 / F1 2010, but the polygonal detail in the vehicles themselves from GT5 trump anything those other games have. You can say the trees are animated, in which they are, but we can bring the fact that there is a wind system in GT5, which dynamically carries the dust and smoke. Let's ignore the fact that as a more intense simulator, GT5 also processes more physics variables than Dirt 2, all while using inferior hardware.

All that being said, GT5 isn't perfect, the 2D trees are meh, but unless closely inspected, look photo realistic. Both GT5 AND FM3 use 2D AND 3D trees. Get over it. I'd rather have a better racing experience or overall graphical upgrade (for example, a better lighting engine) than 3D trees, which I WON'T be staring at. GT5 uses polygonal rumble strips, while FM3 and GRID use just textures + normal maps. Does that make the game look terrible? No. Too much nitpicking... which leads me to one word.

Demo. It's not representative of the final build, not to mention is an OLD build. As all the GTPlanet users (including myself) have noted and realized, the many builds shown are from older builds of the game. For example, the build in TGS doesn't have tiremarks, while the one at GC did. Just wait for the game to come out with direct feed footage, and we'll all see once and for all.

zero_snake99

Well said.

This thread is disappointing to say the least.
TC intentionally sensationalizes his title (mediocre!?.. really?) to bring in the fanboys.
Fanboys from every side brings terrible posts.
Some dude brings up PC games in every single one of his posts (lol comparing PC to consoles...)

It's all pathetic. Let's clear things up.

GT5 runs at 1280x1080p with a horizontal upscale to 1080p @ 60fps with 2xAA. 1280x720p runs with 4xAA. Kaz has mentioned FPS will drop "slightly" with 15 other cars on screen IF water is basically splattering all over you. While technically it's not "locked" that is damn close enough.

PC games vs console games. Herp derp. Let me herp a little harder. I run my Dirt 2 in DX11 mode max settings. Comparing resolution and AA/AF to a console game is dumb. Plane and simple. PS3 is using 2005 technology. PC DX11 standards are 2009 standards, and require over 4 times the amount of RAM (PS3 has 512 mbs of RAM, which includes both system and gpu ram). Any comparison is dumb and pointless. That said IF a comparison could be made, GT5 has better detail than Dirt 2. The reflections may look better on Dirt 2 / F1 2010, but the polygonal detail in the vehicles themselves from GT5 trump anything those other games have. You can say the trees are animated, in which they are, but we can bring the fact that there is a wind system in GT5, which dynamically carries the dust and smoke. Let's ignore the fact that as a more intense simulator, GT5 also processes more physics variables than Dirt 2, all while using inferior hardware.

All that being said, GT5 isn't perfect, the 2D trees are meh, but unless closely inspected, look photo realistic. Both GT5 AND FM3 use 2D AND 3D trees. Get over it. I'd rather have a better racing experience or overall graphical upgrade (for example, a better lighting engine) than 3D trees, which I WON'T be staring at. GT5 uses polygonal rumble strips, while FM3 and GRID use just textures + normal maps. Does that make the game look terrible? No. Too much nitpicking... which leads me to one word.

Demo. It's not representative of the final build, not to mention is an OLD build. As all the GTPlanet users (including myself) have noted and realized, the many builds shown are from older builds of the game. For example, the build in TGS doesn't have tiremarks, while the one at GC did. Just wait for the game to come out with direct feed footage, and we'll all see once and for all.

zero_snake99

I discovered something neat while playing F1 2010. I've got almost all graphics all the way up, I only have things like, cloth and crowd on low, because I don't care about those. Anyway, know how GT5's reflections are "pixelated?" Well the reflections on F1 2010 when on Ultra, have a MUCH LESS drawing distance than GT5's. You will see how much less...

I have one more example, but I'll leave it out (unless requested) due to file sizes...

Anyway, layer those two images, and you'll see that in a matter of inches, you can see items pop up in the reflections. In this case, it's the banner.

whats the number for the sony defense force

Vader993

9-1-1, perhaps?

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

whats the number for the sony defense force

Shad0ki11

9-1-1, perhaps?

SDF is all fakeboy fabricated.

really, there is no possible way anyone could be that delusional. their trademark is even "giving you unbiased news". it's a joke website, bro.

[QUOTE="zero_snake99"]

I discovered something neat while playing F1 2010. I've got almost all graphics all the way up, I only have things like, cloth and crowd on low, because I don't care about those. Anyway, know how GT5's reflections are "pixelated?" Well the reflections on F1 2010 when on Ultra, have a MUCH LESS drawing distance than GT5's. You will see how much less...

I have one more example, but I'll leave it out (unless requested) due to file sizes...

Anyway, layer those two images, and you'll see that in a matter of inches, you can see items pop up in the reflections. In this case, it's the banner.

HelloMoto56

that entire car looks like complete ***.

i apologize, but it does.

I was at Gamestop the other day and I stopped to play what I thought was GT5p since the gfx were a little underwhelming(still great) compared to bullshots I've been seeing, but apparently it was GT5. I'll have to stop by tomorrow and take a few more laps to verify.

My honest opinion is that it's not really a step above FM3 when it comes to image quality, but I'm well aware that it's doing a lot impressive things graphically like 1280x1080 2xAA, 16 cars, weather, and so on. Content-wise it's much like Reach. Just so much good stuff it's hard to pass up.

It's not the end-all supercomputer, ultra blaster graphics that people were making it out to be. Same thing that happened with Forza 3. Oh well, gameplay>gfx.

gamecubepad

This thread is disappointing to say the least.
TC intentionally sensationalizes his title (mediocre!?.. really?) to bring in the fanboys.
Fanboys from every side brings terrible posts.
Some dude brings up PC games in every single one of his posts (lol comparing PC to consoles...)

It's all pathetic. Let's clear things up.

GT5 runs at 1280x1080p with a horizontal upscale to 1080p @ 60fps with 2xAA. 1280x720p runs with 4xAA. Kaz has mentioned FPS will drop "slightly" with 15 other cars on screen IF water is basically splattering all over you. While technically it's not "locked" that is damn close enough.

PC games vs console games. Herp derp. Let me herp a little harder. I run my Dirt 2 in DX11 mode max settings. Comparing resolution and AA/AF to a console game is dumb. Plane and simple. PS3 is using 2005 technology. PC DX11 standards are 2009 standards, and require over 4 times the amount of RAM (PS3 has 512 mbs of RAM, which includes both system and gpu ram). Any comparison is dumb and pointless. That said IF a comparison could be made, GT5 has better detail than Dirt 2. The reflections may look better on Dirt 2 / F1 2010, but the polygonal detail in the vehicles themselves from GT5 trump anything those other games have. You can say the trees are animated, in which they are, but we can bring the fact that there is a wind system in GT5, which dynamically carries the dust and smoke. Let's ignore the fact that as a more intense simulator, GT5 also processes more physics variables than Dirt 2, all while using inferior hardware.

All that being said, GT5 isn't perfect, the 2D trees are meh, but unless closely inspected, look photo realistic. Both GT5 AND FM3 use 2D AND 3D trees. Get over it. I'd rather have a better racing experience or overall graphical upgrade (for example, a better lighting engine) than 3D trees, which I WON'T be staring at. GT5 uses polygonal rumble strips, while FM3 and GRID use just textures + normal maps. Does that make the game look terrible? No. Too much nitpicking... which leads me to one word.

Demo. It's not representative of the final build, not to mention is an OLD build. As all the GTPlanet users (including myself) have noted and realized, the many builds shown are from older builds of the game. For example, the build in TGS doesn't have tiremarks, while the one at GC did. Just wait for the game to come out with direct feed footage, and we'll all see once and for all.

zero_snake99

You just owned this thread.:D.

GT5 is the best (staying on topic)

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

My honest opinion is that it's not really a step above FM3 when it comes to image quality, but I'm well aware that it's doing a lot impressive things graphically like 1280x1080 2xAA, 16 cars, weather, and so on. Content-wise it's much like Reach. Just so much good stuff it's hard to pass up.

johny300

From what I've seen, the graphics hype was way too high for what you end up with. As I mentioned, much like FM3, people allowed themselves to be misled by bullshots.

Anyway, in relation to FM3, I never said anything other than what's bolded above. Simple as that. Never ripped the game, actually praised it.

I'm curious, have you played GT5 in HD like I have?

This thread is disappointing to say the least.
TC intentionally sensationalizes his title (mediocre!?.. really?) to bring in the fanboys.
Fanboys from every side brings terrible posts.
Some dude brings up PC games in every single one of his posts (lol comparing PC to consoles...)

It's all pathetic. Let's clear things up.

GT5 runs at 1280x1080p with a horizontal upscale to 1080p @ 60fps with 2xAA. 1280x720p runs with 4xAA. Kaz has mentioned FPS will drop "slightly" with 15 other cars on screen IF water is basically splattering all over you. While technically it's not "locked" that is damn close enough.

PC games vs console games. Herp derp. Let me herp a little harder. I run my Dirt 2 in DX11 mode max settings. Comparing resolution and AA/AF to a console game is dumb. Plane and simple. PS3 is using 2005 technology. PC DX11 standards are 2009 standards, and require over 4 times the amount of RAM (PS3 has 512 mbs of RAM, which includes both system and gpu ram). Any comparison is dumb and pointless. That said IF a comparison could be made, GT5 has better detail than Dirt 2. The reflections may look better on Dirt 2 / F1 2010, but the polygonal detail in the vehicles themselves from GT5 trump anything those other games have. You can say the trees are animated, in which they are, but we can bring the fact that there is a wind system in GT5, which dynamically carries the dust and smoke. Let's ignore the fact that as a more intense simulator, GT5 also processes more physics variables than Dirt 2, all while using inferior hardware.

All that being said, GT5 isn't perfect, the 2D trees are meh, but unless closely inspected, look photo realistic. Both GT5 AND FM3 use 2D AND 3D trees. Get over it. I'd rather have a better racing experience or overall graphical upgrade (for example, a better lighting engine) than 3D trees, which I WON'T be staring at. GT5 uses polygonal rumble strips, while FM3 and GRID use just textures + normal maps. Does that make the game look terrible? No. Too much nitpicking... which leads me to one word.

Demo. It's not representative of the final build, not to mention is an OLD build. As all the GTPlanet users (including myself) have noted and realized, the many builds shown are from older builds of the game. For example, the build in TGS doesn't have tiremarks, while the one at GC did. Just wait for the game to come out with direct feed footage, and we'll all see once and for all.

zero_snake99

I say, good call sir!

Lol... why are you apologizing to me? I know they don't look great. F1 2007 CE for PS3 had better models simply because the devs put more time into it. The Codemaster games don't have much car detail going on in any of their games.

zero_snake99

Yah keep on being delusional to think a console game can beat it in graphics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGc-NEAMOMk

[QUOTE="zero_snake99"]

This thread is disappointing to say the least.
TC intentionally sensationalizes his title (mediocre!?.. really?) to bring in the fanboys.
Fanboys from every side brings terrible posts.
Some dude brings up PC games in every single one of his posts (lol comparing PC to consoles...)

It's all pathetic. Let's clear things up.

GT5 runs at 1280x1080p with a horizontal upscale to 1080p @ 60fps with 2xAA. 1280x720p runs with 4xAA. Kaz has mentioned FPS will drop "slightly" with 15 other cars on screen IF water is basically splattering all over you. While technically it's not "locked" that is damn close enough.

PC games vs console games. Herp derp. Let me herp a little harder. I run my Dirt 2 in DX11 mode max settings. Comparing resolution and AA/AF to a console game is dumb. Plane and simple. PS3 is using 2005 technology. PC DX11 standards are 2009 standards, and require over 4 times the amount of RAM (PS3 has 512 mbs of RAM, which includes both system and gpu ram). Any comparison is dumb and pointless. That said IF a comparison could be made, GT5 has better detail than Dirt 2. The reflections may look better on Dirt 2 / F1 2010, but the polygonal detail in the vehicles themselves from GT5 trump anything those other games have. You can say the trees are animated, in which they are, but we can bring the fact that there is a wind system in GT5, which dynamically carries the dust and smoke. Let's ignore the fact that as a more intense simulator, GT5 also processes more physics variables than Dirt 2, all while using inferior hardware.

All that being said, GT5 isn't perfect, the 2D trees are meh, but unless closely inspected, look photo realistic. Both GT5 AND FM3 use 2D AND 3D trees. Get over it. I'd rather have a better racing experience or overall graphical upgrade (for example, a better lighting engine) than 3D trees, which I WON'T be staring at. GT5 uses polygonal rumble strips, while FM3 and GRID use just textures + normal maps. Does that make the game look terrible? No. Too much nitpicking... which leads me to one word.

Demo. It's not representative of the final build, not to mention is an OLD build. As all the GTPlanet users (including myself) have noted and realized, the many builds shown are from older builds of the game. For example, the build in TGS doesn't have tiremarks, while the one at GC did. Just wait for the game to come out with direct feed footage, and we'll all see once and for all.

_Matt_

I say, good call sir!

[QUOTE="zero_snake99"]

Lol... why are you apologizing to me? I know they don't look great. F1 2007 CE for PS3 had better models simply because the devs put more time into it. The Codemaster games don't have much car detail going on in any of their games.

Hakkai007

Yah keep on being delusional to think a console game can beat it in graphics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGc-NEAMOMk

[QUOTE="Hakkai007"]

[QUOTE="zero_snake99"]

Lol... why are you apologizing to me? I know they don't look great. F1 2007 CE for PS3 had better models simply because the devs put more time into it. The Codemaster games don't have much car detail going on in any of their games.

zero_snake99

Yah keep on being delusional to think a console game can beat it in graphics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGc-NEAMOMk

I don't need to see your screenshots as I play the game at max.

Also tell GT5 fans to stop claiming their console game has better graphics than the best looking PC racing games.

I am not the one who started that argument, it was the delusional GT5 fans.

lemmings and fanboys believe GT5 looks bad. It is sad that when everyone says ti is one of the best looking games on teh console. They still will have this dillusional thought process similar to people who believed geow 1 looked worse than rfom 1. And alan wake looking better than uncharted 2 among thieves. And metro 2033 on xbox 360 looking better than killzone 2. And hte list goes on and on.