Next-gen trees in simracers

don't expect too much visual effect or advanced models in track/cars with such complex physics to calculate, it's already miraculous what AC can do already.

 

Lets hope so. Its 2015, we shouldn't have to put up with 2D trees...

 

Are you joking? Serious, you may need to check into glasses. High levels of saturation doesn't make a game look better. Look at the low res textures. The fact that the track surface and the edge just but up right next to each other. The trees are the same as AC but look terrible imo. and the ground vegetation is nothing to write home about and is again not as good looking as AC. LMFOA, that was pathetic! Oh and reaching 1080p with one car on track is not the same as running 1080p with a grid of 24 cars locked.

 

I will never understand this community's obsession with trees.

 

Im not sure what they laser scanned but it certainly wasn't the track surface. The Forza 5 version is smoother than Yas Marina...





It does look pretty, though the saturation and contrast really are off the chart.

Edit.……

Just for comparison. At times he's struggling to keep hold of the wheel, and I suspect the SR8 isn't really that stiff a car.

 

That picture you posted is irrelevant, DOF and focus makes everything except the car washed out and blurred, so you can't see any details. When you drive in AC it does not look like that, only in replays, those effects are just for show and to cover some of the weaknesses and limitations AC's graphics engine has. About which I will go into detail next.

Here is a direct comparison of AC and FM5 on youtube, so that both have the same level of low quality youtube compression.

1.FM5 has trees that receive and react to sun light and a lot more track-side objects (+ animated flags).


2. Here you can see better that FM5 has actually 3d trees as opposed to the 2d Y shaped trees AC has.


Here are 2 in game shots of AC trees in the same spot to see they are just 3 x 2d planes converging in a Y shape, not even the trunks are 3d, if you can't see the difference you are the one who needs glasses.



3. FM5 has better and a lot more track-side people, AC people are a joke + some eye candy reflections on the windshield and a lot better sky dome and clouds. Also you can see the grass much better in FM5 than in AC, look near the guardrails for comparison.


4. Again, better sky and overall lighting for FM5 + take a look at the edge of track on the right, you said "track surface and the edge just but up right next to each other". Clearly not the case, the grass is irregular and looks naturally grown near the track, as you will see in the next 2 pictures also.


5. Take a look at the edge of track and how realistically grass looks and the other surfaces + lots of track-side objects on the left for FM5.


6. Same thing as before, FM5 has trees that receive sun light because they are 3d, AC can't have that because they are not 3d. + Look at the track-side grass again.


7. Complete fail for AC in this picture: FM5 has better sky, better clouds, better distant lands and realistic horizon haze, not that ugly green fog AC has to cover the lack of distant objects and low res textures. + Trees that don't receive environmental lighting.


8. Same as above with the tees and sky and distant terrain, but here we have also hundreds of people that despite the fact they are not 3d look miles better than AC people.


9. I'll let you find out everything that is wrong or missing in AC compared to FM5 in this picture.


So who needs glasses? You may chose not to like because you're a fanboy, but the pictures don't lie.

Like I said, graphics wise FM5 beats AC. That does not mean AC looks bad, it just means it does not look as good. The same goes when comparing AC vs PCars, actually FM5 and PCars look so much alike in both quality levels and overall tone and lighting it's uncanny...

 

Yes they are both over saturated and have too much contrast

 

@PAKFA

also compare man's power because turn10 or SMS has ridiculously high amount of 3d artiste to do all those little details in acceptable time, and like I said you will never see such 3d trees or hundred of object into a sim with highly realistic physics because there is no room to improve that with actual hardware.

 

Something that can be easily adjusted with TV/monitor settings (if in game options are not present, in case of FM5), but you can't make Spa in AC have 3d trees, better lighting and distant terrain and realistic sky, just to name a few of it's shortcomings.

We are not talking about financial power or man power or even physics here, just a simple graphical engine comparison. One is better than the other. It's as simple as that.

If someone makes a topic about physics, then FM5 would be close to the bottom and AC at the very top if not on top, but this is about next gen trees and thus graphics in general.

 

If you want photo realism, I do, then iRacing is streets ahead.

http://www.samiad.co.uk/iracing/rvv/12_spa/spa.html

 

Oh I am so a fanboy, my feelings are hurt now. If you believe all of those trees (I can't believe I am taking time out of my day for this) are all 3d your smoking. And further more if you think forza looks better, then by all means have fun enjoying it. I on the other hand will love to save my eye site from looking at that mess you call forza. And my last question is did you record all of those videos? Because my AC looks better than that, in real time. Honestly do you even own this game? The settings on all of those videos are turned down quite a bit. But as usual there is no talking to you and this continues to be a waste of my time. I will continue to live in my fanboy realm and enjoy my game. You on the other hand can go and join the community that you love and would rather be a part of (Forza). May you enjoy your superior trees lol!

 

It finally has dawned on me, Pafka is a troll. And is quite good at it. He has never posted any photos of his own, nor any videos. He doesn't own the game more than likely and derails thread after thread about fog and trees. Well done sir, I have been doped.

 

so your comparison is completely useless if you can't get the reason why this one is better than the other, you can't even dare to post such comments if you understand how a modern game is made, and btw I didn't spoke about physics I just mentioned that there is no big place for improvement with advanced physics.

 

In terms of track and off track accuracy, I agree, it looks amazing. Their lighting needs some improvement though and overall the graphics engine is not as good as PCars for example, but their laser scanning and attention to detail is great.

I never said all the trees in FM5 or any other sim including PCars and the even better looking Driveclub are 3d all over the track. It's common knowledge that the trees that are closes to the track are/should be 3d and those that you cannot see good and are at distance are not necessary to be 3d, since you cannot tell anyway from far away.

I do think FM5 looks better, but like I said again and again, they physics are bad, so I'm not interesting to play it. This is just a graphics comparison something you clearly can't comprehend.

Here is the video I used for the screenshots comparison:

You're calling me a troll because you are to ignorant to see and accept? Funny. You just proved yourself to be one of the biggest neophytes on this forum. Don't worry there are a few more like you here, so you should feel at home.

I never posted any videos and photos of my AC and I don't have the game? Really? Did you really said that? Do you even realize how stupid that sounds coming out of your mouth/head?

Why don't you search my content and see for yourself, I'm not gonna bother with neophytes like you anymore. Another one on my ignore list. Goodbye.

I'm not sure what kind of illiterate English you are writing here, but you make no sense at all. Come back when you learn to read write proper.

Actually, don't bother replying to me, because tonight seems that I found two neophytes in one topic. Welcome to my ignore list and goodbye to you too.

 

Well I accept all of your ignore and welcome you as the first person to mine on any site.

 

nice another troll who overreact when people criticise his comments.

and the first one who has trouble with my english.

 

would sure be nice if msft would finally let forza lose on pc :/

 

I wouldn't mind seeing them compete but it will never happen.

 

Yeah he does that on every thread. Once he gets called out for doing the same thing in every thread, he blows up and then the process starts all over again. But I finally used the ignore button and feels kind of good. May have to start using it more lol.

 

Aside from trees, I like AC's overall picture capture better. Natural color and PP saturation. The Forza video early on shows clearly that they are using waaaaaay too much lighting, ray tracing, god rays, etc. Almost to the point that I think they may be masking lower texture resolutions, in compensation. I've never seen light rays THAT intense before, heck, even in Maui, Hawai'i. It's just purely too much.
Also, AC's sheer modeling looks way better. While Forza has a million and a half details, extra objects, AC makes up for having purely better modeling going on. Like the track walls, roads, and connections between all of them.
Honestly, AC did quite good for Y trees. To me they look pretty nice overall. Sure, getting up and close with them is no eye candy, for sure, but the color palette used on those trees, and lighting around them looks good to me.
idk, it just seems like Forza tried way too hard to "flash" the graphics.

Edit: and then there's shadowing. AC is easily the winner there, 10 fold. Sheer shadow map resolution is easily quadruple that of Forza's.