Guru3D Screenshot Thread (Part 2) MASSIVE 56K WARNING

Here is another and from sony's collection, marvel at the detailed textures.

 

no thats what it looks like taken from a bad camera, and who knows on what kind of tv. ive already posted IN GAME shots, here it is again



and guess what, those shots u posted still blow gtr/rfactor out of the water. and i know u dont wanna mention ugly tracks when talking about gtr2/rfactor...lol. maube im wrong tho, maybe by ugly u mean actually seem to be lit by a real light source, and arent just uniformly lit with not a shred of variable light on any object, and almost no shadows to be seen

 

pretty sad that stuarts bias is so strong that he cant even acknowledge what is SO GLARINGLY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH WORKING EYES.

 

Yes but your defense is 1 track i have about 105 tracks for rfactor so please, don't bother starting with that. And again both the two shots I mentions were from Sony and at their best quality, so please give it up and read the writting next to the picture. Yes I am the one who needs glasses and a bit of common sense, i actually own all these racing games, but unlike you i actually know what I am talking about, and enjoy all of them and give them credit where credit is due and so far GT-HD is nothing more than a cheap tech demo that is pretty shallow and doesn't look that good. I am sorry if pc graphics have spoiled me and i cant easily be amazed as some people coming straight from ps2 or original xbox graphics.

 

yeah it doesnt look that good....rofl you are seriously sad dude, 1 out of 10000000 people wouldnt agree that gtd hd looks many times better than any pc racer.

spoiled by this



HAHAHAHAHA

 

it would be nice if you actually used the max settings to show your point, as well as some of the nicer lighting hours, such as the evening and the morning...



add to that the fact that the Gmotor2 engine can handle much more, but certain sacrifices need to be made in order to keep framerates playable, not to mention that most of the CPU cycles are dedicated to the physics (yes, CPU cycles still affect graphics in dx9) unlike in arcade games like forza and GT

lastly, you claiming that eclap's screenshots are not ingame is incorrect, unlike forza and GT, GTR2, rFactor and GTL (all built from slightly different versions of the same engine) do NOT have extra quality added to replays etc, the graphics are the same no matter what gameplay mode you use!

 

i did use max settings, besides time of day ur screen is identical to mine, and still looks generations worse than gt hd and pgr3. lol cpu cycles have nothing to do with this game looking terrible graphically.

 

my screenshot does look different, the textures are clearer and sharper

also, if you would like to contact ISI in relation to the CPU cycles please do, I'm under NDA with ISI so I can't go into any details, but I can assure you, that CPU cycles has alot to do with why you don't see the quality of graphics you see from arcade games

 

yes the cpu has a lot to do with lighting models and shaders

the only diff is u have an ati card and i have an nvidia card, nvidia af doesnt work properly in this game

 

the shaders are programmable by the artists making the models, if they haven't used them to their full potential then that is their problem

the lighting model is fine, however most objects do not cast shadows as the shadows do eat up CPU cycles

When ISI get a DX10 engine happening, we will finally see graphics that can match the arcade titles, while having even better sim physics (dx10 does not require the CPU when making images on the GPU)

you may think it is crap, but the CPU needs to calculate where the display the model, what angle the light is, how intense the light is, where the shadow will be cast, what colour etc etc, DX10 will eliminate all this

 

and btw there is not even going to be full game of GT HD only the demo was released and then it was dropped, the game makers wanted to concentrate more on GT5.

 

The real thing you need to think about is, no matter how many poloygons and dynamic shadowing it has, it still doesn't look real because there is no reflection off the paint of the surroundings, lol pwned.

 

as I said before, the shaders are programmable by the artist (including real-time reflections) if they don't make full use of it then that is up to them

 

can all be done on gpu in dx9, their engine just sucks.

 

incorrect

being able to calculate such things on the GPU is one of the big talking points of DX10, it is something that was not possible under DX9

 

u might want to do some reading on 3d rendering, as u seem to have some serious misconceptions.

 

not quite

3 methods of rendering shadows, 1 of which was used in earlier ISI sims, where a flat texture is cast from a static light point (fast, but useless)

1 is where you use ray tracing (now called shadow mapping) which is what games such as GT and project gotham are using, HOWEVER, this method relies on a trade off with the texture resolutions as it uses alot of bandwidth! (lets face it, lo-res textures on a computer screen look bad)

the third method is shadow mapping, which relies on the CPU as well as the GPU, while the quality is sometimes not as good, it is more effecient while still being dynamic

and of course, introduced with later revisions of dx9 (not used in gmotor2) is soft shadows, which are more complicated and can work from mutiple light sources, including reflected light

 

um ray tracing and shadow mapping are very different, and shadow mappings effect on cpu utilization should be nearly negligible if u choose to compute them on the gpu. it sounds like your confusing an engine design decision with a hardware limitation. your right about bandwidth usage tho, altho seeing how rudimentary this game is, im sure theres bandwidth to spare.

 

my bad on the saying shadow mapping was 2 different things, I meant to say volume shadowing (for ray tracing)

there is bandwidth to spare with 1 car on track, but once you get to the range of 40+ you run out very quickly (some users will find blocking textures show up when they run too many cars as they run out of bandwidth)

EDIT: about the cpu usage, it is almost non-existant if you only do a few, but you have to remember, each track has about 500 objects minimum, if you were to cast a shadow from all of those as well as every car on track, you end up using enough CPU, that it begins to slow performance drasticly

and about your earlier comment about AF on nvidia graphics cards, there are certain options you can change in both GTR2 and the nvidia control panel (mostly mip-map settings) that will bring the AF quality back into line

and another pic to bring this topic back on topic

 

it would only seriously impact cpu performance if the devs chose not too offload it to the gpu. ive never seen a game where turning off shadows improves performance when u are cpu limited. its quite the reverse actually, shadows are always a big gpu hog.

the only way to get sharper af is to set neg lod bias to allow, and that introduces shimmering which is worse. theres no option in gtr 2.

that pic looks very off, the sun is suppose to be shining down brightly, but nothing is actually affected by it, its just a circular light map around the sun.