This site uses cookies for analytics and personalized content. By continuing to browse this site, you agree to this use. Learn more
11 Pages12345>>PrevNext
Rank: Driver's License
#51 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 12:13:19 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: Speedster996 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: FullNietzsche Go to Quoted Post
Those screenshots are pretty damning. Forza 6 already made a lot of quite drastic cuts to quality from Forza 5 and now they've gone further backwards. It will be interesting to see comparisons with other tracks to see what else they've quietly downgraded.

Interestingly, this is the opposite of last gen where the Forzas graphically all got unequivocally better with each new release.


Not quite true my friend. Between FM3 and 4, there was a graphical downgrade. Do a side by side comparison and tracks in 4 looked washed out while losing a fair amount of trackside detail. The FM4 forums were getting hammered with complaints but in order to achieve the improvements in sound and physics while keeping frames capped, it had to be done. FM4 did have vastly improved car sounds and physics, not to mention more tracks and all the other goodies.

Originally Posted by: Cerrax Go to Quoted Post
What happened to graphics?

A seven-year-old graphics card, that's what.

The Xbox One has 7-year old hardware in it. As Ialyrn and others have pointed out, many new and CPU intensive features have been added to each game. And that causes details to be sacrificed. T10 has said that every track has a specific budget that it must stay within to maintain 60fps. Looks like the foliage and textures were taking up too much of that budget, so they were cut back.

If graphics are that important to you, that's the whole reason Microsoft is making the Xbox One X. It will run all tracks and cars at full detail, whereas the older and weaker Xboxes can still play the game, but they will have reduced visual and audio quality.


Why are people under the impression that the One-X boasts higher detail levels compared to the base Xbox One models? It is a 4K/HDR console and ALL the additional power that it has is to run games at a LOCKED 60/30fps @4K resolution. Resolution, as you PC buffs especially know, has nothing to do with detail, filtering or anti-aliasing.

All in all, you will see very sharp and crisp textures, coupled with perhaps better FSAA or MSAA. the additional power in all likelihood can be used for faster loading times and multi-tasking. What does this means for games? Little to no stuttering, super-stable frame rates with little texture compression required and faster load times. The One-X is not a PC - a beefed up PC can perform far better than a One-X BUT... *drum roll please* you will see richer texture detail and filtering ONLY if the game supports it. I bring this up because Forza has to be kept balanced out across all platforms. It seems very unlikely that you'll be seeing better looking trees, higher trackside detail and car modeling or an unlocked frame rate on the One-X.

Fact: Horizon 3 on X-One X is not 60+ fps even though it is on the PC. FM7 and only one other game are 60 fps and running at (allegedly) native 4K. Most games coming for the X-One X have not been able to hit native 4K at a locked 60 fps. They are more or less capped at 30 fps, and in most cases, checkerboarded 4K. Do you think with all this work cut out, developers will be adding higher detail and filtering, making the base versions look inferior? Seems like a really stupid marketing & business practice, if that ever happens. The games are still developed primarily for the base console and then get the additional textures (resolution upgrade not detail) for 4K.

So please stop creating confusion and false information - the One-X will not magically give you better audio or richer texture detail in first-party X-one exclusives. Although, on the subject of audio, we might expect a more advanced codec owing to the Dolby Atmos and DTS:X support, but then games need to natively support that. So far, none do.


Fairly certain the devs have gone on record to say that there will be higher resolution textures, otherwise known as 4k assets, less pop in, greater draw distances and better particle effects. Though that last one could be wrong.

Digital foundry have conducted a number of analysis videos picking apart the two versions, I recommend having a look at them if people would like to know the differences.

Comparison between PC, X1 and X1x
Gamescon demo analysis
Earlier build analysis and comparison
Rank: A-Class Racing License
#52 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 12:24:04 PM(UTC)
Graphics looks to be a downgrade for sure while lighting has improved. I’m using Xbox One S and LG OLED.
LG OLED E6
Rank: Racing Permit
 2 users liked this post.
#53 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 12:42:28 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: airborn007 Go to Quoted Post
Graphics looks to be a downgrade for sure while lighting has improved. I’m using Xbox One S and LG OLED.


Well sometimes lighting looks really awesome but I can't get used to the matte painted Drivatar cars... At first I thought those matte cars are just having custom paint jobs but now I'm afraid they lack gloss reflections due to improve frame-rate. I hope I'm wrong because non-glossy only shaders are so very low-class in every driving game made after 1996.

Rank: Racing Permit
#54 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 1:19:57 PM(UTC)
i was going to post 3 others shots, but now i get this message on my Gallery from the website : "Error Retrieving Photos. No Results Found" :/
Rank: D-Class Racing License
#55 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 1:25:31 PM(UTC)
Don't know about you but while racing I'm not looking at grass and trees unless I really stuff up.
Rank: C-Class Racing License
 1 user liked this post.
#56 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 2:11:14 PM(UTC)
In the OP, I'd say the second set of screenshots for Fm5 - Fm7 are very very similar. The only difference seems to be time of day/weather effecting the look of the trees and road.

Also for the OP - it's really not as simple as "choosing textures". It's a question of millisecond budget per frame and engine architecture. I'll agree, on some tracks, the bill boarded trees do look a bit ropey. Upping the resolution of that texture, or switching that texture from a previous game, is not going to make it look much better. It's a question of billboarded trees vs geometric trees with bill boarded leaves and details.

It's not all bad news though. Some tracks such as Spa, which from some angles has many trees, huge forests even, still looks great. Even on Maple Valley, if you discount some of the questionable trees, the rest of the backdrop looks pretty great.

It's been said over and over so I don't know why it still gets discussed. T10 is a huge studio with probably some of the best talent there is, and they have form- they know how to make things look great. But when your hardware stands still and the market demands new features that will impact your frame budget, you've got to sacrifice something somewhere. Sometimes I think they'd be better of cutting their losses, dropping to 30fps and regaining some ms for environment details. People make a big deal "muh 60fps" but I bet barely anyone would be able to tell the two apart in a test.

Who knows? Perhaps the Forza Engine is due a rewrite? When it was first conceived FM was a Xbox only title and the One X wasn't a thing.
Rank: Racing Permit
 5 users liked this post.
#57 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 4:12:46 PM(UTC)
Yes, i can confirm that the graphics looks downgrade also on PC compared to FH3 and Forza Apex. In particular most of the car models are flat and poor detailed and definitely they look much worse than Forza Horizon 3. Also the great new entry, dynamic weather condition and day time are a [Mod Edit - Abbreviated profanity, profanity and profanity that is disguised but still alludes to the words are not permitted - D]! You can be enable these features only in a few preset locations and they're not dynamic. Seriously, whats happen to this game?

I don't like what I see...

Edited by user Sunday, October 1, 2017 3:04:51 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rank: X-Class Racing License
 2 users liked this post.
#58 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 4:37:14 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: dubmat Go to Quoted Post
In the OP, I'd say the second set of screenshots for Fm5 - Fm7 are very very similar. The only difference seems to be time of day/weather effecting the look of the trees and road.

Also for the OP - it's really not as simple as "choosing textures". It's a question of millisecond budget per frame and engine architecture. I'll agree, on some tracks, the bill boarded trees do look a bit ropey. Upping the resolution of that texture, or switching that texture from a previous game, is not going to make it look much better. It's a question of billboarded trees vs geometric trees with bill boarded leaves and details.

It's not all bad news though. Some tracks such as Spa, which from some angles has many trees, huge forests even, still looks great. Even on Maple Valley, if you discount some of the questionable trees, the rest of the backdrop looks pretty great.

It's been said over and over so I don't know why it still gets discussed. T10 is a huge studio with probably some of the best talent there is, and they have form- they know how to make things look great. But when your hardware stands still and the market demands new features that will impact your frame budget, you've got to sacrifice something somewhere. Sometimes I think they'd be better of cutting their losses, dropping to 30fps and regaining some ms for environment details. People make a big deal "muh 60fps" but I bet barely anyone would be able to tell the two apart in a test.

Who knows? Perhaps the Forza Engine is due a rewrite? When it was first conceived FM was a Xbox only title and the One X wasn't a thing.


Sometimes the gamers can make all sorts of Demands but that doesn't mean that they know best or even what they're talking about. Part of the developers job is to have that dialogue with the gaming community and say hey guys with the current level of Technology we have this is not possible.

I'm not actually sure turn 10 understand or know what good communication is and I think that is what upsets most people. If they came out and said hey guys we can make this game 60 frames per second at 4K but you're going to lose some graphical details at least people would know ahead of time and they'd be informed. Another option turn 10 have is to say hey guys we can do this with the current level of technology and we know that the visual aspect of the game is important to you so we're going to limit ourselves to 30 frames per second because it's the best compromise.

Unfortunately turn 10 likes to make sure that when they present everything it looks the best it possibly can, and while there is nothing wrong with that it is not representative of a majority of their Market. Then they're only idea of communicating with the community is through content creators which all pedal the same basic idea or through their measly week in review article which usually contains little to no useful information.

As has been the case over the past decade turn 10s problems are not their technical skills or abilities it's their lack of communication.
Rank: Racing Permit
#59 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 5:05:51 PM(UTC)
im going from forza 6 and horizon 3 on a standard xbox one to forza 7 on an xbox one s...are the graphics gonna be better or worse?
Rank: Driver's Permit
 1 user liked this post.
#60 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 8:01:03 PM(UTC)
im playing maxed out settings and 150% resolution scale on PC (2560x1080) and everything looks perfect EXCEPT the damn trees. straight up 2D spins with the camera. i only use like 60-70% avg GPU usage on a 980ti and about 30% CPU i7 4790k, so plenty of headroom for some nicer trees.
Rank: Racing Permit
 2 users liked this post.
#61 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 8:34:48 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: A Tokar 77 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: airborn007 Go to Quoted Post
Graphics looks to be a downgrade for sure while lighting has improved. I’m using Xbox One S and LG OLED.


Well sometimes lighting looks really awesome but I can't get used to the matte painted Drivatar cars... At first I thought those matte cars are just having custom paint jobs but now I'm afraid they lack gloss reflections due to improve frame-rate. I hope I'm wrong because non-glossy only shaders are so very low-class in every driving game made after 1996.



Is this confirmed or just a bug?

Downgrading trees and grass is one thing. But giving almost all AI cars matte painting to save resources...

In Forza 8 all AI cars will have blacked out windows without interior, but we well get 8K @ 144Hz.
Rank: On the Podium
#62 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 8:49:50 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: Ialyrn Go to Quoted Post
Forza 7 = better weather, night and lighting system; more details added = even more reduction of track side details.


So...if the lighting is better...why does it look worse? Ditto with the detail?

Nothing FM6 was doing was significantly less taxing than what FM7 is doing.


FH4 Liveries | FM7 Liveries | Tunes Available, Search Criteria: DEW
Rank: On the Podium
#63 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 8:53:03 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: dubmat Go to Quoted Post
In the OP, I'd say the second set of screenshots for Fm5 - Fm7 are very very similar. The only difference seems to be time of day/weather effecting the look of the trees and road.

Also for the OP - it's really not as simple as "choosing textures". It's a question of millisecond budget per frame and engine architecture. I'll agree, on some tracks, the bill boarded trees do look a bit ropey. Upping the resolution of that texture, or switching that texture from a previous game, is not going to make it look much better. It's a question of billboarded trees vs geometric trees with bill boarded leaves and details.

It's not all bad news though. Some tracks such as Spa, which from some angles has many trees, huge forests even, still looks great. Even on Maple Valley, if you discount some of the questionable trees, the rest of the backdrop looks pretty great.

It's been said over and over so I don't know why it still gets discussed. T10 is a huge studio with probably some of the best talent there is, and they have form- they know how to make things look great. But when your hardware stands still and the market demands new features that will impact your frame budget, you've got to sacrifice something somewhere. Sometimes I think they'd be better of cutting their losses, dropping to 30fps and regaining some ms for environment details. People make a big deal "muh 60fps" but I bet barely anyone would be able to tell the two apart in a test.

Who knows? Perhaps the Forza Engine is due a rewrite? When it was first conceived FM was a Xbox only title and the One X wasn't a thing.


Bolded part is a BS excuse. The hardware cycle for the Xbox 360 was significantly longer than the Xbox One has been...the Xbox One is not even 4 year old and the 360's cycle was double that. FM4 boasted significantly better graphics than FM2. There is no reason our player car models should look as crummy as they do.

FH4 Liveries | FM7 Liveries | Tunes Available, Search Criteria: DEW
Rank: C-Class Racing License
 2 users liked this post.
#64 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 9:03:00 PM(UTC)
You have to make sacrifices somewhere. I've noticed that even Maple Valley in FM4 looks a lot more vibrant and detailed than in FM7; 3D trees, track details, etc. FM7 has an almost flat tarmac, 2D trees and such. However, you can't beat the higher resolution, framerates and lighting.
PC: i5 8600k OC'd @4.5ghz|Asus Rog Strix z370-E|MSi 1080Ti Gaming X|G.Skill Trident Z 16gb 3000mhz|500gb SSD|1TB HDD|Corsair H100i V2|Corsair Crystal 480x RGB|Dell 165hz Gsync 1440p
Rank: B-Class Racing License
 1 user liked this post.
User is suspended until 4/12/2045 11:41:31 AM(UTC)
#65 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 9:09:08 PM(UTC)
Just a wild theory at the moment: do you think a bit of slacking off in the graphics area was due to a lack of competition? I mean PCARS2 still looks bland on consoles. So does Dirt 4. As one gentleman said, the X360 had double the lifespan of the One, and there were significant improvements between FM2 and 4.
Rank: On the Podium
 3 users liked this post.
#66 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 9:10:54 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: TheHuskyGT Go to Quoted Post
You have to make sacrifices somewhere. I've noticed that even Maple Valley in FM4 looks a lot more vibrant and detailed than in FM7; 3D trees, track details, etc. FM7 has an almost flat tarmac, 2D trees and such. However, you can't beat the higher resolution, framerates and lighting.


I think the lighting is garbage. The shadows are barely there and the flat track textures just draw your attention to the models poly-count deficiencies.

Why do we have to make sacrifices? FM6 looked great. If I have to give up spectacular looking cars for something that looks like it belongs in Gran Turismo 4 so that a race can start in the rain and end sunny, then screw it. I'd rather an all wet race and my money back. This feels like a mediocre expansion at best.

FH4 Liveries | FM7 Liveries | Tunes Available, Search Criteria: DEW
Rank: Racing Permit
 2 users liked this post.
#67 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 9:35:12 PM(UTC)
...it's almost like they worked backwards from the One X and PC versions or something
Rank: D-Class Racing License
#68 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 9:44:25 PM(UTC)
It's quite obvious that the OP has taken the F7 pic from PC on low detail. Just saying.
Rank: Racing Permit
#69 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 9:52:37 PM(UTC)
Matte cars: I found some matte cars even in the "buy cars" menu or showroom. For example the '77 Aston Martin. What is interesting thought that only the British Racing Green color is matte, the other colors are glossy! So it seems to be a bug, not a detail-cut to improve FPS!
Rank: Driver's License
 1 user liked this post.
#70 Posted : Friday, September 29, 2017 11:37:12 PM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: dubmat Go to Quoted Post
In the OP, I'd say the second set of screenshots for Fm5 - Fm7 are very very similar. The only difference seems to be time of day/weather effecting the look of the trees and road.

Also for the OP - it's really not as simple as "choosing textures". It's a question of millisecond budget per frame and engine architecture. I'll agree, on some tracks, the bill boarded trees do look a bit ropey. Upping the resolution of that texture, or switching that texture from a previous game, is not going to make it look much better. It's a question of billboarded trees vs geometric trees with bill boarded leaves and details.

It's not all bad news though. Some tracks such as Spa, which from some angles has many trees, huge forests even, still looks great. Even on Maple Valley, if you discount some of the questionable trees, the rest of the backdrop looks pretty great.

It's been said over and over so I don't know why it still gets discussed. T10 is a huge studio with probably some of the best talent there is, and they have form- they know how to make things look great. But when your hardware stands still and the market demands new features that will impact your frame budget, you've got to sacrifice something somewhere. Sometimes I think they'd be better of cutting their losses, dropping to 30fps and regaining some ms for environment details. People make a big deal "muh 60fps" but I bet barely anyone would be able to tell the two apart in a test.

Who knows? Perhaps the Forza Engine is due a rewrite? When it was first conceived FM was a Xbox only title and the One X wasn't a thing.


Hell no. 60fps is a must and not something you compromise on. 60fps is what makes the game feel great. I was so happy that FH3 came to PC and I could finally play at 60fps or higher. The previous FH games annoyed the hell out of me due to the 30fps. 60fps should be the minimum standard for all games. Anything less is peasant garbage.
Rank: C-Class Racing License
 1 user liked this post.
#71 Posted : Saturday, September 30, 2017 2:08:26 AM(UTC)


Originally Posted by: Dewstain Go to Quoted Post


Bolded part is a BS excuse. The hardware cycle for the Xbox 360 was significantly longer than the Xbox One has been...the Xbox One is not even 4 year old and the 360's cycle was double that. FM4 boasted significantly better graphics than FM2. There is no reason our player car models should look as crummy as they do.


You really don't know what you are talking about do you? I use game engines every day at work, and I'm used to trying to balance performance and visuals.

For a start, that's a apples and oranges comparison, and it just isn't relevant. Back then the engine was so different there's probably very little comparison between it then and now. Certainly from a rendering aspect. For example, it didn't have PBR back then. I really think the cars look fine too. I see a few jaggies here and there, but assumed that was down to the fact I'm playing a 1080p game on a wall with a projector. Maybe you should just go ahead and unpack some assets from FM6 and FM7, then compare equivalent LOD's. These type of jaggies are not a result of "not enough polys" but of too little AA. You come across as if you think T10 did a naff job of the graphics to spite you personally. We're talking a about a huge first party studio with a reputation plus those reputations of the individuals that worked on it. You think they just thought "Nah sod it I can't be bothered today"?? Are you completely insane?


Seriously dude I don't know what to tell you. You've demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of what you are arguing about, and at that point lost all creditability of your argument. Of all the issues I have with the game, any graphical things are bottom of the list right now.

Rank: Racing Permit
 4 users liked this post.
#72 Posted : Saturday, September 30, 2017 2:23:45 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: dubmat Go to Quoted Post

We're talking a about a huge first party studio with a reputation plus those reputations of the individuals that worked on it.



Exactly this is why many of us are surprised in a bad way. Forza Motorsport is a game series which is famous mostly because of it's top quality graphics. It's one of the main game franchise of the Xbox consoles. The dev. team is officially helped by Microsoft.

This the reason why I haven't expected that the new Forza game will feature trees looking like imported from Need For Speed III and dull cars looking like made of clay because they don't have gloss shaders. For and independent dev.team of five guys it would be okay, but we're speaking about a really high budget production made by maybe over a hundred people.

Still I'm not bashing them but I really hope they don't leave the game in its present shape.

Edited by user Saturday, September 30, 2017 2:24:33 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rank: C-Class Racing License
#73 Posted : Saturday, September 30, 2017 3:29:08 AM(UTC)
The paints have a really odd effect on some cars, the lower texture of the orange peel seems to not have helped the problem, just look at the 918 showcase, but even in the Forzavista LoD paints still look poor. I've only imported one paint so far (metallic green Jaguar XE) and it doesn't look matte but there is no metal flake shown and it looks nothing like the FH3 colour.
Rank: Driver's License
#74 Posted : Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:27:18 AM(UTC)
Graphics in menu are quite bad too, lots of jaggies etc and cars in buying screen/garage are very low poly models. Almost hurt my eyes to watch them. It seems that regular One's version is only v0.5, One X will be much better in all areas I guess.

FM7 is not as bad as pCars 2's XOne-version, it's unplayable before X comes, but I expected FM7 be much better than this what it is just now.
Rank: On the Podium
 1 user liked this post.
#75 Posted : Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:27:30 AM(UTC)
Originally Posted by: asm1983 Go to Quoted Post
It's quite obvious that the OP has taken the F7 pic from PC on low detail. Just saying.


You must have gotten one of those special "not terrible" copies.

Originally Posted by: dubmat Go to Quoted Post


Originally Posted by: Dewstain Go to Quoted Post


Bolded part is a BS excuse. The hardware cycle for the Xbox 360 was significantly longer than the Xbox One has been...the Xbox One is not even 4 year old and the 360's cycle was double that. FM4 boasted significantly better graphics than FM2. There is no reason our player car models should look as crummy as they do.


You really don't know what you are talking about do you? I use game engines every day at work, and I'm used to trying to balance performance and visuals.

For a start, that's a apples and oranges comparison, and it just isn't relevant. Back then the engine was so different there's probably very little comparison between it then and now. Certainly from a rendering aspect. For example, it didn't have PBR back then. I really think the cars look fine too. I see a few jaggies here and there, but assumed that was down to the fact I'm playing a 1080p game on a wall with a projector. Maybe you should just go ahead and unpack some assets from FM6 and FM7, then compare equivalent LOD's. These type of jaggies are not a result of "not enough polys" but of too little AA. You come across as if you think T10 did a naff job of the graphics to spite you personally. We're talking a about a huge first party studio with a reputation plus those reputations of the individuals that worked on it. You think they just thought "Nah sod it I can't be bothered today"?? Are you completely insane?


Seriously dude I don't know what to tell you. You've demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of what you are arguing about, and at that point lost all creditability of your argument. Of all the issues I have with the game, any graphical things are bottom of the list right now.



No, you've demonstrated a clear lack of foresight into what is acceptable and what is not. No, I do not work for a gaming company, but I am a purveyor of multiple types of game; in fact I'm at a place in my life where I can literally buy whatever I want whenever I want. It's a nice place to be in even if I don't have time to learn all your graphical jargon.

Bottom line is this, though...even if it has a higher resolution, better lighting, increased LOD or whatever....it looks worse. There is no question that it looks worse. If it looks worse then all the **** you mentioned is not worth it.

For this sack of poo, I feel like I've perhaps thrown $100 away. No, actually it feels like Turn 10, a company I've defended for years, has STOLEN $100 for me in a quick cash grab based on their previous name.

FH4 Liveries | FM7 Liveries | Tunes Available, Search Criteria: DEW
11 Pages12345>>PrevNext

Notification

Icon
Error