Support NeoGAF

[OsirisBlack]

https://fbcdn-video-i-a.akamaihd.ne..._=1413086633_8e6e5ee6a63df82654abe04b364605d7 Just sharing this here check out the ending.... im trying to do that and go into a spinning drift around the long corner of chile. Also as far as visuals I think the game looks much better in cockpit mode or hood cam much more realistic that way.

 

[Pjsprojects]

You don't seem to understand the image quality does not necessarily correlate with system power. It also doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's open world. If its graphical fidelity was better than DC AND it was open world, THAT would be worthy of praise. However, DC easily beats FH2 in graphical fidelity.

It's also absolutely ludicrous to factor in FH2's weather effects as a way to say it looks better than DC. It's not indicative of FH2's engine being better than DC's, as DC is getting it soon and the effects started late in the dev cycle (hence the delay), and the effect itself can't be directly compared to DC's current lack of one.

In regards to your bizarre drivel at the beginning of your post, I don't really know how to respond to such nonsense.

One thing sounds right to me and that's His main point, FH2 does look better than DC and is open world.
I spent all evening playing both,matching cars and trying to match day/night between the two.

 

[VanWinkle]

One thing sounds right to me and that's His main point, FH2 does look better than DC and is open world.
I spent all evening playing both,matching cars and trying to match day/night between the two.

I don't agree with you. I VERY much appreciate image quality, but, if the image quality of the lesser is still decent, graphical fidelity takes precedent. Graphically DC looks much better in MOST ways (not every single one).

Here's the thing: if the amount of aliasing in DC matched FH2, there would be no discussion about which looks better. And that says it all.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

One thing sounds right to me and that's His main point, FH2 does look better than DC and is open world.
I spent all evening playing both,matching cars and trying to match day/night between the two.

Well that's the beauty of both games, I applaud Horizon 2 for choosing the image quality route. It certainly helps, but hitting a game with less going on on-screen at any given moment with better anti-aliasing, versus cramming more and suffering the consequences is an interesting developer trade-off. And it's one that your in favor of.

On the other hand, seemingly focusing more on the ridiculous vistas and the way the game looks in motion, driveclub to me anyway looks better in that regard. It's very interesting to see what developers prefer to focus on, and ultimately I don't feel either game is a "let-down" in the graphics department.

If the worst we can bitch about in DC is that pathetic bit of aliasing, and the tradeoff in Horizon being "only really good looking lighting, not the best". Then consider me tickled pink. That's a win-win in my book.

 

[VanWinkle]

Well that's the beauty of both games, I applaud Horizon 2 for choosing the image quality route. It certainly helps, but hitting a game with less going on on-screen at any given moment with better anti-aliasing, versus cramming more and suffering the consequences is an interesting developer trade-off. And it's one that your in favor of.

On the other hand, seemingly focusing more on the ridiculous vistas and the way the game looks in motion, driveclub to me anyway looks better in that regard. It's very interesting to see what developers prefer to focus on, and ultimately I don't feel either game is a "let-down" in the graphics department.

If the worst we can bitch about in DC is that pathetic bit of aliasing, and the tradeoff in Horizon being "only really good looking lighting, not the best". Then consider me tickled pink. That's a win-win in my book.

Nicely put! I'm not disappointed in either by any means.

 

[strata8]

I don't think there's a single other game out there that uses real time dynamic global illumination with time of day properly replicated. Pretty sure DriveClub is the first game in history to have it, and I'd imagine it'd be highly taxing.

Crysis 2 had real time GI with time of day changes... in 2011. And it was enabled on Medium, which was a small step above the 360/PS3 settings. That ran fine of my A10-5800K with something like 1/4 the power of the PS4. I remember toggling it on and off and the difference was 1 frame or less.

Regardless, both Crysis 3 and Ryse have real time GI. Whether or not the time of day changes is irrelevant since all of CryEngine's lighting is dynamic anyway.

Crysis 2 was also the first game to implement screen-space reflections as well AFAIK.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Crysis 2 had real time GI with time of day changes... in 2011. And it was enabled on Medium, which was a small step above the 360/PS3 settings. That ran fine of my A10-5800K with something like 1/4 the power of the PS4. I remember toggling it on and off and the difference was 1 frame or less.

Regardless, both Crysis 3 and Ryse have real time GI. Whether or not the time of day changes is irrelevant since all of CryEngine's lighting is dynamic anyway.

Yeah people can talk all the ish they want about Crytek, they're masters of the programming craft. That engine is absolutely breathtaking. If I recall the Resolution and Framerates weren't anything to write home about in those games (at least for consoles), but man they do put out a pretty game.

 

[benzy]

Driveclub has a bunch of simulations like wind, cloud, dust particles, atmospherics and a bunch of other nonsense. Evolution, IMO, might have missed the forest for the trees with this game. I look at their trailers and bullshots and I think "yeah, 30fps justified." I look at the screens people are posting and I don't get quite get it.

The weirdest thing to me about the game are the honestly low-quality implementations of post-effects like depth of field and motion blur.

I agree.

SO Canada has a million trees? the clouds are 3d? There are wind physics that effect the way water ripples?

Wtf does any of that matter if the cost of having those things results in poor IQ and chappy blur, no aliasing, af ect.

I actually do think drive club looks good, but even up to the release of the game I wondered why evolution focused on that stuff so much. Why map out a huge swath of land in 3d when the game is a circuit racer?

I'm not a programmer by any means but it seems they could have taken another less demanding solution for lighting and the environment and it's associated physics and vastly improved games IQ.

While clouds and global illumination are nice, when I'm racing I don't really pay much attention to the details around me anyway, so most of the time I'm not seeing the rippling water or the wind blowing the trees, instead I'm staring at my jagged dash, or jagged rear end of my car.

I'm also not convinced that these environmental physics are doing anything for the actual driving part of the game. It's not a sim anyway. How much difference could it actually make? How much does it really matter?

The fact that forza horizon 2 looks nearly as good, sometimes better and is open world speaks volumes about how important it is to put effort into the right areas for a given genre.

Edit.
Also, seeing time lapse of both games weather systems makes me think that forza horizon 2 clouds and weather are fine, they move in real time, cast shadows and seem to do everything that drive club clouds do. But cost less system resources to do. Drive club clouds just seems like there are more of them then anything else.

Have both of you guys played DC though? I understand it's all personal preference but still... can you honestly look at the comparison below and say Evo's GI lighting solution wasn't worth it compared to FH2? Both games lack good AF, so it's not just a negative point for DC, it should be a complaint for FH2 as well. DC's motion blur isn't bad at all, so I'm not sure what that's about. I agree the DOF in DC is terrible though. If anyone with FH2 can get better screengrabs showing a similar scene in cockpit as in these pics, with lots of vegetation in the distance and near, feel free to post them. Just look at the lighting, materials and shaders for the dashboard, which in DC isn't even really aliased as some of you think. Then you look at the scenery and it's not even really a comparison. But, that's also a bad FH2 shot, just like you guys basing DC's image quality on bad shots.

I'm not really seeing this terrible image quality and aliasing in DC when actually playing it (even with the car sitting still). Just about everyone who's played DC says the same, though in motion it probably looks a bit less sharp than FH2, it's still definitely not as bad as some of the screens.

I think you guys should play DC first and experience the various weather/time conditions before making such claims about which priorities were taken from each dev to be the better one, or even comment on DC's image quality where the majority of people who've played agree that it looks a lot better in motion than in stills. FH2 definitely has a good advantage in the AA used, but it's not like DC's image quality is total trash. Here you can see FH2's image quality is indeed superior, but DC can still hold its own. FH2 also suffers from aliasing on the foliage edges as with DC. AF is terrible in both.

So overall, is Evo's preference in using deferred rendering with GI solution worth it at the expense of MSAA? IMO, definite yes. Global illumination isn't just another "small detail" like water ripples from simulated wind, it takes lighting to a whole different level, light gets reflected and refracted onto surfaces, and in turn those surfaces reflect the light particles onto other objects and surfaces. The whole lighting for the scenery, trees, road pavement, rocks, buildings, the cars, everything in relation to the lighting and shadows just looks much more uniform and realistic.

Regarding AA, Evo even managed to implement a variety of AA techniques in support of the GI solution. The problem with aliasing in DC pertains to objects that have to render very tiny lines, especially at a distance, so things like post signs, trees that contain really small branches, certain body lines of the cars, little light reflections on the cars, those end up looking like a jaggy mess in screens. Since they're so small and thin though it's really not noticeable in motion (except for the cars). Ex: the tree branches here. Everything looks pretty clean and smooth besides those trees, which you don't notice at all when playing.

 

[isamu]

I asked this question in another forum but no one addressed it so I'll ask it here:

To those of you who cringe at playing 30fps racers and wish it was 60fps....

Do any of you own a TV with motion interpolation? If so, have you tried turning that on, particularly in racing games that are 30fps, to see how well it runs? How much more input lag does it introduce? Someone on another forum said he uses it in Forza Horizon 2, and it's running at a perfect 60fps now with no input lag.

From XxxXxx

Get a decent tv and turn on interpolation. FH2 is 60fps smooth on my tv.

Is this a good solution?

 

[NullPointer]

Crysis 2 had real time GI with time of day changes... in 2011. And it was enabled on Medium, which was a small step above the 360/PS3 settings. That ran fine of my A10-5800K with something like 1/4 the power of the PS4. I remember toggling it on and off and the difference was 1 frame or less.

Could the player set the time of day? Did it change as you played? I don't remember either from my time with C2, though I played it on the 360. I also gave it a shot on my PC but I ran into problems.

I don't get how this is a decent comparison though. In DC these settings are configurable per event, along with a time compression setting and cloud coverage.

 

[strata8]

Could the player set the time of day? Did it change as you played? I don't remember either from my time with C2, though I played it on the 360. I also gave it a shot on my PC but I ran into problems.

Yes (through the console), and yes. The first area in particular started at dawn and progressed into mid-morning over time.

I don't get how this is a decent comparison though. In DC these settings are configurable per event, along with a time compression setting and cloud coverage.

Like I said before, that doesn't really matter. The cost of Crytek's LPV GI is exactly the same whether or not the time of day is changing.

 

[D'ultimate]

Well that's the beauty of both games, I applaud Horizon 2 for choosing the image quality route. It certainly helps, but hitting a game with less going on on-screen at any given moment with better anti-aliasing, versus cramming more and suffering the consequences is an interesting developer trade-off. And it's one that your in favor of.

On the other hand, seemingly focusing more on the ridiculous vistas and the way the game looks in motion, driveclub to me anyway looks better in that regard. It's very interesting to see what developers prefer to focus on, and ultimately I don't feel either game is a "let-down" in the graphics department.

If the worst we can bitch about in DC is that pathetic bit of aliasing, and the tradeoff in Horizon being "only really good looking lighting, not the best". Then consider me tickled pink. That's a win-win in my book.

How do you figure FH2 has less going on onscreen at once than DC? Because Evo says some clouds are being processed and PG didn't?

Along with the clouds, weather and all the other crap FH2 has 16 cars for every race and traffic during none races as well as the ability to drive just about anywhere at any time.

DC has different lighting and it can be perceived as better but those are design choices by the developers, not graphical fidelity. All the aliasing and low res textures aren't made up for by better lighting IMO.

 

[Game4life]

https://fbcdn-video-i-a.akamaihd.ne..._=1413086633_8e6e5ee6a63df82654abe04b364605d7 Just sharing this here check out the ending.... im trying to do that and go into a spinning drift around the long corner of chile. Also as far as visuals I think the game looks much better in cockpit mode or hood cam much more realistic that way.

Wow! Freaking gorgeous!

 

[Soccer4life]

Have both of you guys played DC though? I understand it's all personal preference but still... can you honestly look at the comparison below and say Evo's GI lighting solution wasn't worth it compared to FH2? Both games lack good AF, so it's not just a negative point for DC, it should be a complaint for FH2 as well. DC's motion blur isn't bad at all, so I'm not sure what that's about. I agree the DOF in DC is terrible though. If anyone with FH2 can get better screengrabs showing a similar scene in cockpit as in these pics, with lots of vegetation in the distance and near, feel free to post them. Just look at the lighting, materials and shaders for the dashboard, which in DC isn't even really aliased as some of you think. Then you look at the scenery and it's not even really a comparison. But, that's also a bad FH2 shot, just like you guys basing DC's image quality on bad shots.

I'm not really seeing this terrible image quality and aliasing in DC when actually playing it (even with the car sitting still). Just about everyone who's played DC says the same, though in motion it probably looks a bit less sharp than FH2, it's still definitely not as bad as some of the screens.

I think you guys should play DC first and experience the various weather/time conditions before making such claims about which priorities were taken from each dev to be the better one, or even comment on DC's image quality where the majority of people who've played agree that it looks a lot better in motion than in stills. FH2 definitely has a good advantage in the AA used, but it's not like DC's image quality is total trash. Here you can see FH2's image quality is indeed superior, but DC can still hold its own. FH2 also suffers from aliasing on the foliage edges as with DC. AF is terrible in both.

So overall, is Evo's preference in using deferred rendering with GI solution worth it at the expense of MSAA? IMO, definite yes. Global illumination isn't just another "small detail" like water ripples from simulated wind, it takes lighting to a whole different level, light gets reflected and refracted onto surfaces, and in turn those surfaces reflect the light particles onto other objects and surfaces. The whole lighting for the scenery, trees, road pavement, rocks, buildings, the cars, everything in relation to the lighting and shadows just looks much more uniform and realistic.

Regarding AA, Evo even managed to implement a variety of AA techniques in support of the GI solution. The problem with aliasing in DC pertains to objects that have to render very tiny lines, especially at a distance, so things like post signs, trees that contain really small branches, certain body lines of the cars, little light reflections on the cars, those end up looking like a jaggy mess in screens. Since they're so small and thin though it's really not noticeable in motion. Ex. the tree branches here. Everything looks pretty clean and smooth besides those trees, which you don't notice at all when playing.

DC is really one step ahead on anything on consoles right now... I mean jeez FH2 shots are really bad relatively .

 

[jizzlobber]

He selected a bunch of terrible FH2 shots, that's why.

it's like an ad for wrinkle cream!
help sell your spiel with carefully selected pics... he must work in advertising

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

How do you figure FH2 has less going on onscreen at once than DC? Because Evo says some clouds are being processed and PG didn't?

Along with the clouds, weather and all the other crap FH2 has 16 cars for every race and traffic during none races as well as the ability to drive just about anywhere at any time.

DC has different lighting and it can be perceived as better but those are design choices by the developers, not graphical fidelity. All the aliasing and low res textures aren't made up for by better lighting IMO.

I use my eyes? I think the graphics in Horizon 2 are excellent, nothing that really blows me away mind you, but excellent none the less. I find the foliage density to be greater in Drive Club, I find the draw distance to be greater as well, and there were some really interesting conversations about mountains recently that really made me appreciate the graphical showcase in driveclub over other racers.

Scope is something that I just (personally) feel is in Drive Club's favor.

Plus the whole "open world" point is honestly pretty silly. It's not like Forza is anything like Skyrim in that the world is persistent, and calculations have to be made accordingly at all times for everything happening in the "world". Open world in Horizon loads the next frame just like Driveclub does. From a graphic's perspective I don't see why it would be any harder on the hardware.

He selected a bunch of terrible FH2 shots, that's why.

it's like an ad for wrinkle cream!

He also asked people to provide better examples.

 

[VanWinkle]

He selected a bunch of terrible FH2 shots, that's why.

it's like an ad for wrinkle cream!
help sell your spiel with carefully selected pics... he must work in advertising

He doesn't have much options unfortunately since XB1 doesn't have screenshot functionality. There aren't really any other comparable gameplay screenshots for FH2 out there.

 

[nib95]

Yes (through the console), and yes. The first area in particular started at dawn and progressed into mid-morning over time.

Like I said before, that doesn't really matter. The cost of Crytek's LPV GI is exactly the same whether or not the time of day is changing.

Don't the Crysis games pre-bake the global Illumination, and only from the sun? Similar to Shadow Fall and other games using GI. Difference is Driveclub's is fully dynamic, unless of course I'm misinformed.

 

[Soccer4life]

He selected a bunch of terrible FH2 shots, that's why.

it's like an ad for wrinkle cream!
help sell your spiel with carefully selected pics... he must work in advertising

Feel free to add more shots of FH2, don't get me wrong FH2 is a fantastic game, it just don't hold up to DC in the graphics and lightning departments.

FH2 has great car models but less impressive environment than DC. also dynamic lightning puts DC on a whole another level.

 

[Pjsprojects]

He selected a bunch of terrible FH2 shots, that's why.

it's like an ad for wrinkle cream!
help sell your spiel with carefully selected pics... he must work in advertising

I did a few same car,same colour and roughly same time shots of the two on the last couple of pages in the console screenshot thread if it helps.

 

[benzy]

He selected a bunch of terrible FH2 shots, that's why.

it's like an ad for wrinkle cream!
help sell your spiel with carefully selected pics... he must work in advertising

Ah, but it's okay for some people to base their impressions of DC's image quality on some bad shots. I even acknowledged the very first cockpit screen of FH2 is a bad shot and tried to prove a point, did you even read the post or just look at pictures? You're welcome to show me shots of FH2 in similar settings and time lighting that compare to the DC shots I posted. Actually, I would love to see it because I'm pretty sure FH2 isn't a slouch in graphics. DC doesn't have any city environments to compare to the FH2 ones, which all look rather nice btw.

I think the only other bad shot is the 458 which is a bit blurry, but it was posted in this thread before and the only one of the 458 I could find. But you can still see the texture art of the environment and vegetation in comparison to DC's. All of the other ones aren't bad shots though, the lighting and tree details just aren't as good as the DC ones. Go ahead and post many pictures of the trees similar to the last FH2 screen in different lighting or angles, I don't think it'll look much different.

 

[Prototype]

Ya lol I've played drive club. Lvl 25? I unlocked the 458 italia. Haven't played the last couple days.

 

[benzy]

Ya lol I've played drive club. Lvl 25? I unlocked the 458 italia. Haven't played the last couple days.

Is the AA really that bad on your screen? I mean to actually prefer Evo dropping the GI lighting solution? I'm on the India track now and got 3 feet close to the TV to look for jaggies. The environment is pretty free of flicker, for parts of the car in chase cam it's noticeable though. In dashboard I'm not seeing jaggies at all. Like I said before, AF is definitely terrible in DC. It's not much of an improvement in FH2 though.

 

[strata8]

Don't the Crysis games pre-bake the global Illumination, and only from the sun? Similar to Shadow Fall and other games using GI. Difference is Driveclub's is fully dynamic, unless of course I'm misinformed.

Nope, Crytek are opposed to pre-baking anything, because they consider CryEngine's strength to be 100% WYSIWYG. And as a result all the lighting - including GI - is completely dynamic.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Nope, Crytek are opposed to pre-baking anything, because they consider CryEngine's strength to be 100% WYSIWYG. And as a result all the lighting - including GI - is completely dynamic.

A bit off topic, but why don't more companies license the Cryengine? It's probably the best one on the market in my opinion.

 

[Hawk269]

One thing sounds right to me and that's His main point, FH2 does look better than DC and is open world.
I spent all evening playing both,matching cars and trying to match day/night between the two.

I agree and have done the same. DC does have some fantastic looking visuals on some tracks, but as a whole when compared to FH2 and the fact that PG achieved what they did with an open world does give it an edge to FH2. FH2 just has a much cleaner look to it than DC. DC is no slouch however and under certain lighting conditions it looks pretty amazing.

With all that said, I wish PG would make a circuit based racing game, if what they are able to achieve with an open world racing game, I can't imagine what they would do with a circuit type racing game like DC.

The good news that no matter if you have one or the other or both, they are two good looking racing games and both are a lot of fun.

 

[Coolbgdog12]

I've played FH2 and see it pretty much daily(my cousin has an XB1) and it looks really good. The image is pretty sharp and clear and the framerate is smooth at 30fps.

Everything else though?? Not as impressive compared to Driveclub.

The lighting, foliage and the density of said foliage, the draw distance, the skies, weather and overall geometry of certain background objects imo are superior in DC.

 

[Pjsprojects]

I've played FH2 and see it pretty much daily(my cousin has an XB1) and it looks really good. The image is pretty sharp and clear and the framerate is smooth at 30fps.

Everything else though?? Not as impressive compared to Driveclub.

The lighting, foliage and the density of said foliage, the draw distance, the skies, weather and overall geometry of certain background objects imo are superior in DC.

How can you say weather? FH2 has weather but at the moment DC don't seem to have it apart from wind.

 

[strata8]

A bit off topic, but why don't more companies license the Cryengine? It's probably the best one on the market in my opinion.

Inflexible and poor documentation. That's what the reviews on Steam say, anyway.

 

[Coolbgdog12]

How can you say weather? FH2 has weather but at the moment DC don't seem to have it apart from wind.

The youtube video of Driveclub's rain was amazing and looked markedly better than the rain I've seen in person on FH2 imo. On top of that DC has snow and thunder to boot.

 

[D'ultimate]

I've played FH2 and see it pretty much daily(my cousin has an XB1) and it looks really good. The image is pretty sharp and clear and the framerate is smooth at 30fps.

Everything else though?? Not as impressive compared to Driveclub.

The lighting, foliage and the density of said foliage, the draw distance, the skies, weather and overall geometry of certain background objects imo are superior in DC.

No weather in DC and "draw distance"? Seriously?

Go take a look at the FH2 photography thread and look at all the pics that show wayyy off in the distance. Distance that you can drive to at any time.

DC has lighting... and clouds I guess. Personally I feel FH2 matches it in this area as well though. At least in FH2 you're going to get rain from the rain clouds.

 

[Coolbgdog12]

No weather in DC and "draw distance"? Seriously?

Go take a look at the FH2 photography thread and look at all the pics that show wayyy off in the distance. Distance that you can drive to at any time.

DC has lighting... and clouds I guess. Personally I feel FH2 matches it in this area as well though. At least in FH2 you're going to get rain from the rain clouds.

Weather isn't in DC yet but from what I've seen of it, the work in progress already looked better to me at least from what I've seen of FH2 in person.

Draw distance.. yeah.. The vistas are stunning and are really huge when you watch the camera pan over them at the start of races. The environments are sometimes insane looking. I've seen watchdogs level of water in DC already. You may not be able to go to them but they're still being rendered.

I don't need to go into the thread, I can play FH2 at home as I have access to an Xbox 1. It looks great. I was watching my cousin do a cargo plane race in the rain and it was stunning but yeah.

As far as driving to things in FH2.. Well yeah you can but the foliage isn't really impressive to me. It looks good in motion but once you stop the car and look it looks last gen almost. Most of the open ended parts of FH2 are pretty barren or filled with low geometry trees from what I've seen.

 

[Peterpan]

The youtube video of Driveclub's rain was amazing and looked markedly better than the rain I've seen in person on FH2 imo. On top of that DC has snow and thunder to boot.

Are they dynamic? Real question, not some power comparison one.

 

[Coolbgdog12]

Are they dynamic? Real question, not some power comparison one.

Perkins said the weather will range from deafening thunderstorms to light drizzles, quick dustings to raging snowstorms. They're calling the weather system dynamic not only because of the customization options, but also because of the range of effects they're aiming for.

"We’ve designed it to be just like real weather systems," Perkins said. "Spots of rain can become torrential downpours or transition into blizzards, quickly or slowly, and when the clouds clear up the tracks will dry out too. So if you’re in Norway, for example, you’ll face heavier snow when you’re racing atop the mountains and much lighter snow or sleet when you descend to a lower altitude."

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/08/how-driveclubs-dynamic-weather-changes-the-game

Either way the games offer visuals that are great for each respective style they're aiming for. Forza has this really vibrant flashy look while Driveclub goes for a more realistic look.

 

[flipswitch]

He selected a bunch of terrible FH2 shots, that's why.

it's like an ad for wrinkle cream!
help sell your spiel with carefully selected pics... he must work in advertising

They look good to me, definitely wouldn't call them terrible though.

 

[jizzlobber]

They look good to me, definitely wouldn't call them terrible though.

G'day Flip!!

Exaggerated comment for emphasis, just like those pics, heheh.

they aren't very flattering.

 

[adelante]

Nope, Crytek are opposed to pre-baking anything, because they consider CryEngine's strength to be 100% WYSIWYG. And as a result all the lighting - including GI - is completely dynamic.

See, that's the thing I don't get. People highlighting Driveclub being the first game to implement real-time global illumination just because it's configurable by the user?

But more to the point, the GI feature in Cryengine; isn't it also referring mainly to indirect illumination and realtime-radiosity, specifically the color bleeding effect that bounced-lighting brings? It's something that's been computationally expensive and as far as I can tell Cryengine is able to approximate it with pleasing results. I've never seen GI being talked about in the same way by the DC developers; they're usually referring to the game's dynamic time of day feature just being able to casts accurate lighting and shadows. If someone could point out otherwise, that'd be greatly appreciated.

I know global illumination is a blanket term for various lighting technologies but I feel it would behoove those who use it to understand and mention exactly what they're referring to, especially if they're gonna praise a game they like for being the "first" to implement such a feature..

 

[jizzlobber]

I forgot why I came back into this thread for a sec!

I was just playing FH2 then and stopped to look at the shadows, noticed they were very stuttery as if they move at low fps... also the sun (and shadows) don't move smoothly, they will sit still for a while then jump ahead to the next position, a bit like a ticking clock.

you'd never notice when driving of course, but shows some limitations when you stop and look.
games are full of little shortcuts, all about prioritising.

 

[travisbickle]

See, that's the thing I don't get. People highlighting Driveclub being the first game to implement real-time global illumination just because it's configurable by the user?

But more to the point, the GI feature in Cryengine; isn't it also referring mainly to indirect illumination[/B and realtime-radiosity, specifically the color bleeding effect that bounced-lighting brings? It's something that's been computationally expensive and as far as I can tell Cryengine is able to approximate it with pleasing results. I've never seen GI being talked about in the same way by the DC developers; they're usually referring to the game's dynamic time of day feature just being able to casts accurate lighting and shadows. If someone could point out otherwise, that'd be greatly appreciated.

When headlights hit objects the reflected light bounces off on to other objects, for example inside tunnels you'll see reflected light from the car panels on the walls, and of course bouncing between cars ... but I think that is an approximation as well.

 

[adelante]

When headlights hit objects the reflected light bounces off on to other objects, for example inside tunnels you'll see reflected light from the car panels on the walls, and of course bouncing between cars ... but I think that is an approximation as well.

Reflections of headlights? Isn't that a screen-space reflection? Which, given the nature of such technique, also allows not just the headlight/rearlights but also the car's body to be reflected on any adjacent surface. As far as I'm aware, DC is the FIRST racing game I've ever seen implement such a thing and I wish more would do that.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I forgot why I came back into this thread for a sec!

I was just playing FH2 then and stopped to look at the shadows, noticed they were very stuttery as if they move at low fps... also the sun (and shadows) don't move smoothly, they will sit still for a while then jump ahead to the next position, a bit like a ticking clock.

you'd never notice when driving of course, but shows some limitations when you stop and look.
games are full of little shortcuts, all about prioritising.

Absolutely, and it's something the Forza developers are quite good at. Loading a game full of robust dynamic systems isn't going to make for a better game, but it does make the game more seamless. It's not a worthwhile trade off if all you're talking about is good graphics. Dynamic systems are far too demanding compared to a targeted pre-baked approach.

But man does it target my specific interests in gaming graphics. To just be able to throw anything into the engine and have it perform as is just seems awesome to me. So much of the stuff they programmed in is absolutely pointless for the end user, but it means the world to them on the programming end. It seems like Driveclub is more the byproduct of an engine design, and less of a designed game. Which I'm absolutely fine with, it's like the Crysis of the racing games lol. But the devs are happy about this, it's got some pretty neat social aspects, the racing and handling are sublime, and the graphics are excellent.

Forza horizon had a much clearer target in mind, and it shows.

It doesn't have any impact on me though because the games

Spoiler

are

different. You can see evo's passion for the cars in driveclub, and you can see PG's enthusiasm for the open world, balls to the walls off-road race.

S'good times.

 

[Jimrpg]

I think both games look jaw droppingly good, in fact probably the two best looking racing games every made. FH2 makes me want to buy an Xbox One cause I know there's no way it will come on PC.

I think if I have to pick one I would say that Driveclub is slightly more impressive of the two, there are times when you race with no HUD then it looks too god damn real for words. The accuracy in the colour reproduction with the lighting engine is dead on. I think FH2 is going for a different artistic style which in my book is also really appealing to me. I love both styles, I think that's more important than graphical techniques that the dev may or may not have put into the game.

 

[eso76]

I actually do think drive club looks good, but even up to the release of the game I wondered why evolution focused on that stuff so much. Why map out a huge swath of land in 3d when the game is a circuit racer?

I agree with some of that, but the way environments are built in DC plays a big role in enhancing the sense of speed of the game.
Evolution boosts sense of speed by littering the close proximity of the track with a miryad of tiny objects and details that enter and leave your field of view in an instant, and juxtaposing structures that are so far away and so large, they seem to be barely moving.
It's the juxtaposition that generates the sense of scale, and sense of speed as a result.

I remember milestone using a similar solution for the otherwise pretty average racing evoluzione/apex, for which they asked an architect to design the tracks: he came up with the same juxtaposition theory.

Whereas many racers chose the faster and more obvious approach (draw a track first then decorate with trackside detail) Evolution modeled the environments first, and THEN carved tracks out of them.
I've been asking for a Wipeout game built with this philosophy for ages, but no luck. Wipeout would really benefit from a similar workflow.


Apart from that, yeah, it almost looks as if Evolution were building their engine for a different game. A lot of what their engine is doing doesn't really look tailored for a closed (p2p, same thing) circuit racer. and their cloud tech (middleware ? had no idea, hadn't seen anything like it before) while incredible, you can't really appreciate outside of time lapse videos. You will never get the chance to notice how realistically clouds shift and change shape.
But hey, a lot of what Evolution does really pays off in terms of overall visuals, although i do wish they put IQ higher on their list of priorities.

 

[Prototype]

I agree with some of that, but the way environments are built in DC plays a big role in enhancing the sense of speed of the game.
Evolution boosts sense of speed by littering the close proximity of the track with a miryad of tiny objects and details that enter and leave your field of view in an instant, and juxtaposing structures that are so far away and so large, they seem to be barely moving.
It's the juxtaposition that generates the sense of scale, and sense of speed as a result.

I remember milestone using a similar solution for the otherwise pretty average racing evoluzione/apex, for which they asked an architect to design the tracks: he came up with the same juxtaposition theory.

Whereas many racers chose the faster and more obvious approach (draw a track first then decorate with trackside detail) Evolution modeled the environments first, and THEN carved tracks out of them.
I've been asking for a Wipeout game built with this philosophy for ages, but no luck. Wipeout would really benefit from a similar workflow.


Apart from that, yeah, it almost looks as if Evolution were building their engine for a different game. A lot of what their engine is doing doesn't really look tailored for a closed (p2p, same thing) circuit racer. and their cloud tech (middleware ? had no idea, hadn't seen anything like it before) while incredible, you can't really appreciate outside of time lapse videos. You will never get the chance to notice how realistically clouds shift and change shape.
But hey, a lot of what Evolution does really pays off in terms of overall visuals, although i do wish they put IQ higher on their list of priorities.

It's a good point you make. I can see how it could help the sense of speed, I guess I just wonder if there was another, less demanding way to go about it, which could potentially leave more system resources free for other things.

Also, when playing I sometimes feel that the game worlds being so big is almost a hint or a "tell" about what could potentially be drive club 2... Why throw away all those assists? Make each country an mini open world in drive club 2. The land is already there... Just carve out more roads, connect things together and there you go.

 

[Auto-Reply]

....

Apart from that, yeah, it almost looks as if Evolution were building their engine for a different game. A lot of what their engine is doing doesn't really look tailored for a closed (p2p, same thing) circuit racer. and their cloud tech (middleware ? had no idea, hadn't seen anything like it before) while incredible, you can't really appreciate outside of time lapse videos. You will never get the chance to notice how realistically clouds shift and change shape.
But hey, a lot of what Evolution does really pays off in terms of overall visuals, although i do wish they put IQ higher on their list of priorities.

I was joking around before that they basically use/d DriveClub for developing systems for a new-Motorstorm (the Weather system

 

[eso76]

It's a good point you make. I can see how it could help the sense of speed, I guess I just wonder if there was another, less demanding way to go about it, which could potentially leave more system resources free for other things.

Also, when playing I sometimes feel that the game worlds being so big is almost a hint or a "tell" about what could potentially be drive club 2... Why throw away all those assists? Make each country an mini open world in drive club 2. The land is already there... Just carve out more roads, connect things together and there you go.

Yes, it does look like a lot of that stuff is underutilized.
The impression i get from DC is that it was originally meant to be something else and was progressively reduced in scope. Or maybe it was just meant to lay the foundations to something bigger.

I was joking around before that they basically use/d DriveClub for developing systems for a new-Motorstorm (the Weather system

i think so too, or maybe something else entirely (open world fantasy RPG please )
Although i believe DC sales will decide whether we're getting a DC2 instead

 

[>-Baron-Spamedi-<]

I hope Evolution improve the anti aliasing in Driveclub 2.
Everything else they've done already adds up to easily the best looking racing game around, but improve the AA by all means.
Whatever they do though I sincerely hope they DON'T make it open world.

The pick up and play racing, the lack of driving assists and absence tuning have been an absolute breath of fresh air into a genre that has been stagnating for years. I'm glad there are games that have these options but I'm equally glad that Driveclub brought the focus back to driver skill and reading the tracks instead of slavishly following a multicoloured line and winning by supercharging a Skoda until it does 300mph.

 

[shandy706]

Shandy please do another gif of taking the picture in game and then the resulting image.

I was going to make a larger gif, but it's too freaking huge for any of the hosting sites..LOL

Here's a video of the same process

http://youtu.be/ye9ZAu_U1jM

...and like an idiot I forgot to share the photo I took..you can even see me not scroll down.

Derp

Here's one I shared while parked a few feet away on the red brick.

 

[shandy706]

While we're talking particle effects, I've yet to see smoke trails left by cars in FH2, DC or PCars having the ability to interact with environment shadows like in GT5/GT6:

I can't speak for DC o PCars, but the smoke/dirt/particles all appear to be affected by light and shadow in FH2.

Even the tail lights when braking light up the smoke with a red haze.

Love how the dirt billows out in this first one, catching the light and shadows

Ask and you shall recieve, lol.

 

[adelante]

I can't speak for DC o PCars, but the smoke/dirt/particles all appear to be affected by light and shadow in FH2.

Even the tail lights when braking light up the smoke with a red haze.

Love how the dirt billows out in this first one, catching the light and shadows
http://a.pomf.se/zbgkhx.gif[/ImMG]

[IMG]http://a.pomf.se/yhbvmr.gif[/ImMG]

[IMG]http://a.pomf.se/ptdeom.gif[/ImMG]

Ask and you shall recieve, lol.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I noticed this in a couple of gameplay videos, and also the launch trailer I think? Where the car spun 360 degrees and lit up the smoke trail it left behind at night. Shadows in the Gran Tourismo games actually create light shafts on smoke particles (as shown in the last photo of GT5 that I posted) which I thought was pretty cool, and in some cases where the smoke is thick enough, you actually see the complex shadow shapes cast on them.