These screen shots. What makes them so good? Is it just a matter of redrawing everything in higher res, or is there more to it. What stops this sort of detail and graphics being present in lfs?

Thanks.

http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/813/813424p3.html

They spend more time on eye candy than they do on proper physics. Also you can get really high res shots that look great, you just need a pretty good PC.

This is the best my PC can do....and thats without most of the high res packs you can get for LFS.

Look at the mirrors in those GT5 screenshots. The level of detail there is horribly low, it seems. I admit that the rest of those graphics look amazing. Almost video-like. But yeah, eye candy doesn't make a game good (not bashing GT here).

Of course but you m,iss my point. Wouldnt it be good if us, the user, like some dedicated souls have already begun doind, could add this level of detail to lfs.

Whats stopping these people making the in car view as good as the one in link for example?

Quote from Stone in Focus :

Of course but you m,iss my point. Wouldnt it be good if us, the user, like some dedicated souls have already begun doind, could add this level of detail to lfs.

Whats stopping these people making the in car view as good as the one in link for example?

Because for that you would need the ability to modify LFS, which is extremely hard to do and not allowed. You can't just do textures that look like that, its all 3D.

ok yeah thats the kind of answer i was looking for. I wonder if we'll ever be able to mod it to that extent?

LFS already looks like the most "realistic" game imo. GT5 looks nice but... something is just off with it.

:cry:

Please, let there be no mods. Let the devs make just the official models. Please...

*loads shotgun*

GT looks amazing ... i wish LFS would have that good graphicks

I see bloom and I see jaggies = fail.

Quote from Jakg :

LFS already looks like the most "realistic" game imo. GT5 looks nice but... something is just off with it.

You call this comic style "realistic"? oO

Maybe lfs have good physics (not at all) but the graphics are really everything but good/realistic.



Even this game had better cockpits

Quote from blackcarmafia :

GT looks amazing ... i wish LFS would have that good graphicks

Let's finish the physics first. If they, in the far future, have gone "nearly perfect", I would simply LOVE if LFS would be able to properly display this high amount of detail, and I would not mind buying a new PC to play it on since I also love the game. But not all of us are able to do this or will do this, and I think LFS would lose about 90% of its current target group - a price that neither me nor you should be willing to pay.

Quote from Crazy Harry :

You call this comic style "realistic"? oO

Maybe lfs have good physics (not at all) but the graphics are really everything but good/realistic.

GT looks "nice" but LFS's "Comic Style" looks closer to real life than those GT cars that seem to not reflect the world around them (even if LFS does it fakely)

Quote from Stone in Focus :

These screen shots. What makes them so good? Is it just a matter of redrawing everything in higher res, or is there more to it. What stops this sort of detail and graphics being present in lfs?

Time mostly. To achieve results like you see in those GT5 shots will take a team of programmers years to do. It's not just a matter of drawing a car and presto, you have something that looks that good. After building the model you have to create materials that simulate how light hits a real car to make it look realistic. Just think about the nuances that exist in a good real life metallic paint-job. Recreating an effect like that with pure maths is a huge job, especially when you have specific hardware-constraints to work with (shader capabilities/length, GPU time budget etc. etc.).

Quote from Jakg :

LFS already looks like the most "realistic" game imo. GT5 looks nice but... something is just off with it.

It looks bit high contrast (EDIT: and saturated), and that is probably done as a post process to mask out a few problems and make it look more like what you see in a movie (rather than TV footage). GT has always had that high contrast look. Other than that though, I think GT5 looks absolutely gorgeous. It doesn't have as much of that prominent bloom and silliness you see in other "next-gen" games for instance. (Rainbow Six: Vegas and CM DiRT being prime examples of how not to do it)

If you seriously think LFS looks more realistic, you need a reality check. I mean common:

IRL a car just reflects the world a few minutes/hours after washing. You will get dust on your car just by driving around. Then it´s over with the reflections. I can tell.

Compare this pic to the pics from the games. Supercar irl without blingbling reflections. Sun was shining like mad. [FM]R1 & [FM]Torben´s joyride^^

What's your point with that horribly over lightened picture Harry?


Anyway. The GT5 pictures look nice, apart from the few edged shadows and horrid mirrors, but I'm sure the illusion of a car will be spoiled once you see them in motion like in previous GT versions. Plus, it's year 2007 and they can't run more than 8 cars with their super duper cell processor?

I think GT5 will have the best racing game graphics today.

@wien: I don't remember ever seeing a white sky in real life. I've seen gray, but never bright white. Many recent games are guilty of this.

Quote from Forbin :

@wien: I don't remember ever seeing a white sky in real life. I've seen gray, but never bright white. Many recent games are guilty of this.

I have, in movies. And that is the look they are going for in the GT series. It's purely art-direction. If you look past the high-contrast/over-saturated look and look at the actual surfaces, the subtle reflection and specular highlights of that TT is enough to "almost" fool at least my eyes. Compared to the silly per-vertex skybox reflections in LFS there's no contest. Realistic graphics isn't just about matching the colors to real life.

Here is the same shot with decreased contrast/saturation and with a little added sky color that was missing from the original due to the high contrast. (You can see the sky is actually blue from the reflections on the left side of the car) Look better to you? Personally I would rather they didn't add all that post-processing, but that doesn't really have too much to do with the underlying light calculations.

That's exactly my problem with recent games, they go for the movie look rather than the realistic look, probably because it's easier to do and looks flashier to Joe Schmoe.

Quote from Forbin :

That's exactly my problem with recent games, they go for the movie look rather than the realistic look, probably because it's easier to do and looks flashier to Joe Schmoe.

I wouldn't say easier as such, but easier to make look good, sure. (If it doesn't look good, make it shiny. ) The more stylized you make something look, the easier it is to get away with something not looking "quite right". The closer you get to something 100% realistic, the more out of place something will look if it's a little bit off (Similar phenomenon to the Uncanny Valley).

I absolutely agree with you though. Most games take this waaay too far. (If I see one more shiny brick wall, I'm going to explode. Yes Bioshock, I'm looking at you!) GT5 looks like it will be one of the better ones though.

Quote from Forbin :

That's exactly my problem with recent games, they go for the movie look rather than the realistic look, probably because it's easier to do and looks flashier to Joe Schmoe.

Well, you're displaying the game graphics on a device rather similar to a movie screen. It's a problem of dynamic range. The human eye can see brighter whites and darker blacks than can be displayed on a CRT or TFT. You can either compress the whites and blacks to fit into the CRT/TFT dynamic range (like LFS), making the lighting look flat and dull or you can attempt to fool the eye by using HDR rendering and a small amount of bloom.

Neither is 'realistic', they're just different ways of attacking the same problem.

Watch the 'Tearing up the Track' video on IGN...if you still think LFS looks better, I think you're deluding yourself. Of course, the cars don't move very realistically, but the graphics taken on their own are stunning.

Well, Forza and GT obviously have much higher detailed cars and tracks. Physics wise, LFS is definitely much better but if I were honest, I've got back in the groove again in Forza and, IMO, they've got a ton of realism in there too. GT, I haven't tried it but I heard that Forza is more realistic than it. Anyway, back on topic, remember that LFS is a developing title . We're still S2 Alpha now and the graphics are pretty good but they will be improved as Eric makes further developments.

I believe that S3 could well look like something Forza or GT or for lower aims, maybe GTR2 or RACE. Just try to remember lads, LFS is still in development . In all departments that really matter in a racing game (Physics, Graphics & Multiplayer code) are still being developed . The physics and multiplayer code are already the finest you can get. Graphics can be improved but the point of all this, is that it WILL get better. All other games like GTR2 or Forza are finished products. True, I remember that when I patched up GTL there a while ago, they improved the physics but it still wasn't amazing.

Patience is the key

This is a so called "Next Gen '07" game. It looks all wonderful, but when you look at the real details.... Besides, qua graphics level it may be next gen, but racing level...

gt5 will probably be using a billion more polygons for the car models (well and environments) than lfs. the focuses are way different, tho i am hopeful the gt5 physics engine will be enjoyable. time will tell. and if it is, and they add g25 support, well they might get me to put aside my sony boycott and get a ps3. abc lmnop too many acronyms lol