|
|
| Page 71 of 116 |
russ80
Posts: 4679
Location: Romania
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 17:40 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 18:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 18:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Well afaik Logitech wheels don't work on PS4, but Fanatec and Thrustmaster ones do. DC supports those ones, I'm using T500 and TH8A.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 20:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 20:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 22:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| fawe4 wrote: | I always was a sim racer, and a project like this, made me follow it from the start. I luckily never saw enough in it to fund it, but I still have some hopes for it.
And yes, it's biggest selling point were graphics. |
Hardly. The biggest selling point for most people (honestly, go back to the start of the thread and early threads on WMD portal) was the fact that it was SMS. They already had a good looking engine with which they built 2 games that are as close to simulation as the "mainstream" audience targeted by EA allowed. With their background and announcement to _not_ seek publisher assistance and instead build the game they wanted to build with Shift 1/2 that's what got most people to invest. What they showed at first was a good looking concept nonetheless, but above all it showed immense details. It wasn't until later when the engine definitely moved past the Shift-stage and got prettier that graphics whores got involved.
As for DriveClub? Let me draw a comparison, because unlike derp80 I have played both (my cousin got a DC bundle from his wife as a Christmas present  ). I'll do the important bits first, so tldr80, please skip to the end for the bits about the visuals. And for those still reading, when it was first announced I had high hopes that it might bring to the PS4 what the original GT did for the PS1, but unfortunately it's quite the opposite.
First off, unlike DC, pCARS actually fucking works. DC still has a warning on its PSN page that says "SHIT MAY NOT WORK BECAUSE OUR SERVER HAMSTERS HAVEN'T BEEN FED IN MONTHS".
But hey, it's pretty, right?
Second, it's most enjoyable with the sound turned off. It sounds absolutely terrible. I'm a bit of a sound whore, I think that it's a vastly underrated part of games. But when it comes to racing games, for any gearhead the sound is very important. And DC sounds terrible. Screeching tires have a very weird reverb effect to them. None of the engines have the characteristic sound they should have. There's even some GT-quality bee-hives in there.
But hey, it's pretty, right?
Third, as expected, it handles exactly as I expected: crap. It's not as bad as NFS, because you actually do have to steer, but everything about the game is made up bullshit. You take some hairpin turns at 110 km/h according to the speedometer (but it looks like the 40 it would be in reality, because the game is incapable of giving you a sense of speed anyway), yet when doing 220 in a long 20 degree turn the back kicks out. Now, I know not everyone (derp80 least of all) knows much about how cars handle, so let me explain what's wrong with all this.
#1: you can't take hairpin turns at such speeds; depending on the car you'd either understeer and kill yourself on the other side, or your back would kick out and send you into a nice little 720 degree spin. Either way, the speeds the game displays are completely fictional and fucking hilarious to watch.
#2: when you're doing 220 in say, a Pagani Hueueuaruruarueuayra, aside from the physics planting the car firmly on the ground (aerodynamics) to the point where it would slide as a whole rather than just its ass, these machines have other tricks that further increase downforce (spoilers rising and such) to give it even more grip. There's no way that in a light turn the back would kick out (unless you intentionally do so ). That's aside from the fact that the car's brains wouldn't let that happen at such speeds, the power distribution systems are way too clever for that. And the Huayra is a great example of a supercar that actually is relatively "finnicky", it is quite temperamental. If you want to get an idea of how firmly planted it still is, look up Top Gear's test track lap with the damn thing. Spoiler alert: it still has the fastest time ever set on that track, almost 2 years after Top Gear tested it.
And despite all this, all the cars still feel like concrete blocks. Everything about it is unresponsive and sluggish and there is absolutely no predictability as to what'll happen every time you turn. Even in GRID 1 and Autosport, which sure as shit aren't sims, you know what's gonna happen with whatever car you're driving. You know that if you push it too hard it's gonna suffer from either understeer (not turning fast enough) or oversteer ("drift") depending on the car. You know that if you push the throttle too hard in an RWD car that you'll get loads of oversteer (oversteer again). None of that in DC. Everything feels like a floating block of concrete.
But hey, it's pretty, right?
Last and least, the visuals. So let me start off with: yes, it looks great. The weather effects are bloody fantastic and rain is definitely done better than it is in pCARS. It's far from realistic, because the colour palette is very oversaturated (as if Samsung had a hand in it), the lighting has its share of problems (HDR is way overdone) but all of that combined makes it look pretty and "pop" nicely.
However, there are lots of problems that russ80 can't know about since he's full of shit and hasn't even seen the game in reality himself. The biggest problem are the bullshit GIFs. They are downsampled and look better than the real deal (and some of them are most definitely "enhanced" with more than just a downsample filter too). What you don't see in those GIFs is the vaseline. You know that "YouTube compression problem" often cited about DC videos? Myth. The videos on YT are much closer to reality than the GIFs. There is an insane amount of vaseline applied throughout the game. Both just the PPAA, but also the motion blur. The latter is applied in all the wrong ways, which means that where it should be used to give you a sense of speed in the way that SMS do, it now seems to exist solely to hide some of the bad shit.
And what's that bad shit? The low quality textures. For all the fucking whining about pCARS' planes with textures for bushes, at least the textures are of a decent resolution. The roadside textures are terrible in DC and a lot of overhead ones (bridges and such) are even worse. I'm specifically nitpicking this, because in motion none of this matters. But because derp80 is hammering so hard about the visuals, I'll take _all_ visuals into account, including ones you only see when (practically) standing still. Because clearly, that's what he does in a racing game, stand still and admire the visuals. And wanna know the funny part? Bushes in DC are the same intersected planes with textures. Neither game uses sprites like GT5 did, they just use the cheapest "3D" option they have. Guess russ80's glasses filter those out of the DC "footage" he's looked at.
And while we're on that, cockpits still look better in pCARS. Far more detailed in a lot of cars.
But hey, it's pretty, right?
So does DC look "better" than pCARS? Depends on your definition of "better". It is highly unrealistic and built for prettyness, pCARS has a much more realistic look to it. Besides that, there are some visual nags in DC that make it look worse; the lighting has some strange inconsistencies, it's definitely not all dynamic. Besides the visuals though, DC has nothing on pCARS or AC. Or even Shift 1 and 2, as far as I'm concerned. Hell, GRID 1+Autosport are more enjoyable as a game. Fuck the visuals.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73331
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 23:26 Post subject: |
|
|
durrp80 still at it I see after months of bullshit. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 23:44 Post subject: |
|
|
And every 20 pages or so werelds joins with a big ass post taking apart every counter argument Btw Werelds from your description the handling sounds as bad as TDU 2  TDU was a great arcade game but TDU 2 fucked up everything that made TDU great.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73331
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Mon, 29th Dec 2014 23:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, that is obvious even from the gifs posted here as proof of "better grafix"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russ80
Posts: 4679
Location: Romania
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 02:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: | | fawe4 wrote: | I always was a sim racer, and a project like this, made me follow it from the start. I luckily never saw enough in it to fund it, but I still have some hopes for it.
And yes, it's biggest selling point were graphics. |
Hardly. The biggest selling point for most people (honestly, go back to the start of the thread and early threads on WMD portal) was the fact that it was SMS. They already had a good looking engine with which they built 2 games that are as close to simulation as the "mainstream" audience targeted by EA allowed. With their background and announcement to _not_ seek publisher assistance and instead build the game they wanted to build with Shift 1/2 that's what got most people to invest. What they showed at first was a good looking concept nonetheless, but above all it showed immense details. It wasn't until later when the engine definitely moved past the Shift-stage and got prettier that graphics whores got involved.. |
I really don't need to go that far. From the first page here:
| Quote: | Slightly Mad Studios have released new two high-resolution previews of their upcoming C.A.R.S. title here on VirtualR.
The new previews show off the historical Lotus 49 Formula One car, including a shot of the car’s very detailed cockpit.
The model seen in the previews is made up of around 250.000 polygons and will run in-game in this kind of quality, thanks to DirectX 11 and the complexity of the used shaders as SMS is aiming to set a new benchmark in visual quality. Aside from pushing the limits in terms of graphics, the studio is also putting equal efforts into the input & physics department. |
And then you quickly have people drooling over the first two screenshots... So, you can hardly say that it was Slightly Mads name the thing that drew the campaign. For one they are not a hugely known studio, certainly not known enough to warrant 3 mil in funding on name alone. They needed something else, and that something were screenshots. Those in-engine screens, hype videos and high flying promises funded the project.
Now, that the screens won't match the end product was almost expected, still the difference in quality between the cars and game in motion is a bit too large. Cars are amazing. In-engine, at least on level of Gran Turismo in photo mode. But like in that game, tracks got the shaft. They feature bland asphalt, ugly trees, blurry grass and dirt, and on certain track sections, quite glaring lack of detail. And the worst, quite unpleasant distance rendering. Sure, people will call that realism, but when you put a car, that features highly stylised studio lightning, in that environment, the end effect is offsetting, and very hard to excuse by simple realism.
Now, what's the hardest, is to make it's fanbase see it. They threw plenty of cash in it just to be able to play early builds. Plenty into rigs capable running it, and a lot of time into bashing it's console competitors. I decided long ago, I won't go into that. When people invest into something, they'll vigorously defend it until it fails.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 09:02 Post subject: |
|
|
For racing game enthusiasts they had a big enough of a name for 3 Mil.
3 Mil isn't that big of a number in crowdfunding, especially not when you had such successful games.
Nobodies get a Mil. or more just by screenshots of pixel art and an idea.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 16:58 Post subject: |
|
|
| PumpAction wrote: | | And every 20 pages or so werelds joins with a big ass post taking apart every counter argument |
Well I had been waiting for this one
When they first announced Driveclub I was all  but the closer we got to "release" (nice launch title that was  ) the worse it looked to me. Sony still lacks a great racing game now 
| Quote: | | Btw Werelds from your description the handling sounds as bad as TDU 2 TDU was a great arcade game but TDU 2 fucked up everything that made TDU great. |
It's not that far off unfortunately. The cars in DC do "sit" on the road a little better than TDU2, but they are equally unresponsive. At least unlike in TDU2 the cars do actually lose grip, just not in any way that makes sense
| russ80 wrote: | | dc looks more realistic even if it has aliasing / blurring issues |
No, it doesn't. Have you ever been outside? The world doesn't look as oversaturated as the game does. The way the game does dusk in particular is absolute horsecrap and anything but realistic. Night time is great. Any other time of day is bloody hilarious to watch. The way they do and apply HDR makes the game look almost like an oil painting at times.
| Quote: | | how about vegetation? |
What about it? Trees are 3D models in both games, branches and such on said trees are done with textured planes in both games, bushes are textured planes in both games, grass is proper "grass" in both games...the only difference is that Driveclub has flowers close to the edge of the road which are done as 3D models, pCARS doesn't have flowers. Not that there's any form of collision on them or anything, you clip right through them. And I'll ignore the fact that there's places where there's supposed to be flattened flowers on the ground and they did that with a 4x4 texture.
And aside from that, people standing along the tracks are animated models in both cases (lame animations in both cases too). Other objects (cars, houses and so on) are all models too. So I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, this is you pulling shit out of your ass.
| Quote: | | or how about actual 3d models for rocks instead of a shitty texture applied on a flat surface. |
What the fuck are you on about? Rocks (terrain) are "models" in both games
Or perhaps you mean the dirt shooting out from under spinning wheels? Newsflash, particles in both games.
| fawe4 wrote: | | And then you quickly have people drooling over the first two screenshots... So, you can hardly say that it was Slightly Mads name the thing that drew the campaign. For one they are not a hugely known studio, certainly not known enough to warrant 3 mil in funding on name alone. They needed something else, and that something were screenshots. Those in-engine screens, hype videos and high flying promises funded the project. |
But those drooling people are generally not the ones who put money into it. And for those of us who looked past the visuals, we knew exactly who SMS are. Leo, Ixi (sup guys, I'll pull you into this ) and I weren't interested because of the visuals, that was just a bonus. It's because SMS were the only developer to produce not 1, but 2 great racing games (for us anyway) in a row. And that in turn was because they consisted of the people behind GTR + GT Legends, which in turn were some of the greatest racing games themselves.
As for your "Bland asphalt" - seriously? You must only have seen old footage or footage shot at shit settings. I'll fire it up in a bit (been meaning to anyway) and do a slow lap around Nordschleife, which has only been done properly (with all the graffiti and such) twice before as far as I know: Shift and Forza. And both of those lacked a lot of asphalt colouration (not tyremarks, but actual discolouration). pCARS definitely does not have "bland" asphalt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 35114
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 19:08 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russ80
Posts: 4679
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 19:37 Post subject: |
|
|
@werelds.. when I said rocks I meant rocky terrain on the sides of the track. dc's environments have complex geometry.
everything in pcars is unconvincing .. except the car models.
bored of discussing this though.. backers / etc will keep denying the obvious simply because of buyers remorse.
Main PC : I7 12700, MSI Ventus RTX 4090 24gb, Alienware AW3423DW QD-OLED
Laptop : I5 4200H @ 3400mhz boost, GTX 850m 2gb Vram DDR3, 4gb RAM DDR3
Derpsole : Playstation 5 disc edition, Ninty Switcherino
TV+audio: LG CX 65" / Sonos ARC + SL ones + Sonos sub 3
VR Headset: Meta quest 2 airlinked
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danyutz
Posts: 4418
Location: Redplanet
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 19:47 Post subject: |
|
|
So the fight for a game made for visuals and one made for gameplay, still continues. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morphineus
VIP Member
Posts: 24883
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 20:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| russ80 wrote: | | bored of discussing this though.. backers / etc will keep denying the obvious simply because of buyers remorse. |
Okay, see you again in a month or two like usual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danyutz
Posts: 4418
Location: Redplanet
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 20:37 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 20:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 21:34 Post subject: |
|
|
| russ80 wrote: | @werelds.. when I said rocks I meant rocky terrain on the sides of the track. dc's environments have complex geometry.
everything in pcars is unconvincing .. except the car models.
bored of discussing this though.. backers / etc will keep denying the obvious simply because of buyers remorse. |
Complex geometry? 
Boy, you have no idea how any of this shit works.
- Very close to the track, yep, that'll be "models" sitting on top of the geometry. Both games do that.
- Beyond those road-side objects, the actual geometry goes from tessellated surfaces, to simple bumpmapping, to no fucks given flat textures. Combine that with the lighting system (AO also plays a role) and you get that feel of depth. Both games do that. But they're still flat surfaces in reality.
And when I say "both games do that" you might as well read "pretty much any game does that".
Either way, I'm not the one full of shit on the defensive here - I wanted DC to succeed more than anyone, but because it has nothing to offer but its visuals and you keep coming in here attempting to make false comparisons, I'll fucking rip it apart and burst your bubble by showing just how much trickery the game really applies (as most games do). I have actually seen and played both games. You haven't. So, if you don't want to "discuss" this anymore because you're "bored", stay the fuck out this thread until you have got a clue what you're talking about - primarily by actually playing EITHER of these games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 21:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russ80
Posts: 4679
Location: Romania
|
| Posted: Tue, 30th Dec 2014 22:00 Post subject: |
|
|
good job missing the point werelds. trickery yes...all games do that. .. main point being dc does proper trickery while pcars does not. paxsali explained it quite well in his post above. I was also more impressed with gt5's overall look than with pcars.
I also dont need to play any of the 2 to compare the graphics. it's not like youtube magically makes dc look photorealistic and simply stunning at times while making pcars look like crap.
also another funny fact.. all dc shots/gifs etc are actual gameplay (cockpit / behind car and no I dont mean photomode and yes I know it increases postprocessing accuracy ). pcars? most that look good are car closeups with lots of dof to hide how crappy and inconsistent the rest of the game looks.
Main PC : I7 12700, MSI Ventus RTX 4090 24gb, Alienware AW3423DW QD-OLED
Laptop : I5 4200H @ 3400mhz boost, GTX 850m 2gb Vram DDR3, 4gb RAM DDR3
Derpsole : Playstation 5 disc edition, Ninty Switcherino
TV+audio: LG CX 65" / Sonos ARC + SL ones + Sonos sub 3
VR Headset: Meta quest 2 airlinked
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 71 of 116 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
) and a decent rig. i know what im talking about since i got the dc disc from a friend and played it. and im playing pcars since the very early alpha. you sir own none of those, so please shut the fuck up. you cant judge a game by silly youtube videos
