Support NeoGAF

[mike4001_]

I don't think you should add AF at 900p, it improves IQ and lowers performance, we can't risk that framerate falling at all. 1080 > 900 doesn't necessarily eliminate all drops either, especially if the PS4 version has drops at 1080p I'd say you would even need to go lower than 720p on XBO to get 60 FPS locked, but I'll be good.

- 1080p with normal AA and AF, 55 FPS average, no tearing (variable framerate doesn't necessarily mean tearing)

- 720p with same AA and AF (the scaling is going to fuck it all up anyway), 60.0 FPS average, no tearing.

You would choose 720p then, right? I mean, anyone can have their own opinion, but I absolutely wouldn't choose that. I can deal with a ~50FPS average if there's no tearing or weird pacing.

The example is a big extreme.

I would prefer 1080 with 55 fps over 720 with 60 ;-)

But I would also prefer 900 / 60 over 1080 which dips into the 50s

 

[p3tran]

Yes, I looked at the video and the article. I still don't understand how you think DF is unprofessional for pointing out a clear winner in a comparison. That's the main point isn't it, it isn't "console wars bullshit" but determining which version to get given the choice. That is the whole premise of these articles and you've not had a problem with them before. Especially in the PS3/360 gen, now you just seem salty.

No my friend!

OTHER people were saying that DF is ..unprofessional, because they put up this article

I said, that I dont find this unprofessional, and I cant understand how some people find this unprofessional, while they were applauding other cases of DF where they had a look in even more premature videos, not even near final builds that were given to them.
I brought call of duty advanced warfare as an example, where they did an ..analysis out of the first offscreen gameplay video activision showed

Do you have any objections on that?

then, I said that the only unprofessional thing I see, is writing that there is "a clear victor",
when performance of this racing simulator game SUCKS ON BOTH CONSOLES.
(I even brought both forzas and driveclub s examples of racers we are already playing that have much better performance)

I am sorry, but if you are happy with ps4 test you see above, more power to you.
for me, this test, it made one thing clear:
I should not preload on NEITHER console,
and 99% this has gone from a "console game to get" to a "pc game to get".

 

[Risk Breaker]

The example is a big extreme.

I would prefer 1080 with 55 fps over 720 with 60 ;-)

But I would also prefer 900 / 60 over 1080 which dips into the 50s

We're talking about worst case scenario here, those rain spray effects are not cheap. I would still prefer native resolution at 55 than upscaled at 60.

 

[thelastword]

25-29 are high 20's

True, but it goes lower than that as shown in the screen.

Also, holy batman, that tearing is atrocious, I believe this is worse than DMC xbone levels of tearing or Sniper Elite. The xbone tears more than PS4 too in PC but it's excessive on both.

That driver though, he made it really hard to watch that video, maybe because racers have been one of my favourite genres since forever, but it's not the first time I've seen such awful driving in a DF video, maybe it was a gamersyde video come to think of it.

 

[Fredrik]

They should've cut the grid size down and optimized the game to run at 60fps or near enough to it with all options on. If an option hurts the framerate too much, cut it. Turning options on/off should be a matter of personal preference, not performance compromise. Not in a racing sim.

And unlike on a PC, you will never be able to make this run better.

Not really sure this is the right way to handle the console side by the devs.

No this seems like they went too far with either effects or the amount of cars on track, possibly even the resolution. I'd be perfectly happy with 720p and 15 cars on track if that meant locked 60fps. :/

 

[GHG]

25-29 are high 20's

The screen cap shows 24fps.

That was mid 20's last time I checked.

 

[tuna_love]

The screen cap shows 24fps.

That was mid 20's last time I checked.

I was talking about the poster saying it stayed in 25 to 29. Last time I checked.

 

[Yoshi]

You do know that gameplay mechanics require hardware power right? Right?

And that if we wanted to play F-Zero until we die we could do just that.

I do know that gameplay mechanics require hardware power. However, reducing the polycount, texture quality, visual effects and resolution of the game will free ressources and as made obvious by F-Zero X, having 30 drivers at an incredible speed on N64-level hardware, these ressources amount to a lot. I do not believe that Project Cars couldn't run at 60fps with all gameplay completely enabled on the new consoles.

I also was not asking for the game to play like F-Zero X. Naturally, I would prefer if it did, because I deem F-Zero GX and F-Zero X the best racing games ever made, but that was not my talking point. I wasn't even just talking about Project Cars, I would want such an option in all games that cannot keep their performance up, for Project Cars, offering the player so many options, it would have seemed quite natural they'd allow for such a setting, which is why I brought it up here in particular.

 

[BY2K]

I saw on Twitter that SMS is a bit mad that DF did the analysis on this build as it's 2 months old and doesn't have improvements made since.

Is this true?

 

[LoveCake]

What build of the game have the used for this comparison, many on the DF site are saying that it is a old build, but i cannot see any reply from a DF mod/admin acknowledging or denying this :/

I have the SE version on order for PS4 so i want to know if to keep the pre-order or hold off unitl the reviews come in.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

No my friend!

I don't think, he's your friend, buddy.

Besides, PCars is the very first racing simulator for my PS4. I can compete against 44 opponents on the Nordschleife without having to chase that damned rabbit. All I ever wanted. I can live with causual frame drops down to ~40. There was a time when 40 fps in a racing game was the dream of a mad man . (I only say press the "t" button in Geoffs F1GP...).

Besides (again), doesn't DF belong to Eurogamer who decided not to review anything else than the final (and maybe Day1-patched) edition of a game?

 

[marmoka]

The game looks great, but it seems the rain is responsible of frame drops, unfortunately. Meanwhile, it's greatly stable with sunny days, I only saw 59.0 at the XONE version just once.

For those who don't care about fps, I guess playing with the rain will be fine. For those who care, they will have to play always with sunny days. Not good news, but it's the user's decision to play smoothly or enjoying dynamic weather.

 

[GHG]

I was talking about the poster saying it stayed in 25 to 29. Last time I checked.

He's referring to DF's comment about what range the framerate "breaches" into.

You can clearly see it "breaches" down to 24, 25 and 26 fps. That is no longer classified as high 20's.

Spoiler

Last time I checked.

 

[Kazdane]

I saw on Twitter that SMS is a bit mad that DF did the analysis on this build as it's 2 months old and doesn't have improvements made since.

Is this true?

I haven't seen any mentions about the build being 2 months old, but they have definitely said this build doesn't contain important optimizations and fixes they did for performance. They've also stated in the WMD forums that on consoles the game runs at 60 fps with occasional dips into the 50s.

 

[bombshell]

I saw on Twitter that SMS is a bit mad that DF did the analysis on this build as it's 2 months old and doesn't have improvements made since.

Is this true?

Yes, build is from February, before a final optimization push.

 

[thelastword]

I was talking about the poster saying it stayed in 25 to 29. Last time I checked.

DF implied that the high 20's is the worse it gets, it does not, the screen cap shows it, the last time I checked 24 and 25fps are not high 20's.

The bit about 25-29fps was not even about that error on DF's part though, I was surprised that a 60fps racer stayed so long in the 25-29fps range. VVV said it was a solid 60fps on consoles.

 

[khani47]

Why all this hostility,

The game will be fantastic, the devs have worked so hard to bring you a game that is close to the PC version, the build from Jan-Feb is very different to the one we are experiencing now, Weather system has been improved, have a little patience and not jump on the bandwagon.

 

[opticalmace]

Seems pretty good overall. I'm not put off that there are FR dips when you have 44 cars on one track + weather.

Will get this for PC anyway though.

 

[dark10x]

I'm reading the comments of the devs about this and DF should be really ashamed of themshelves for releasing this article. It shows a total lack of professionalism.

Doing this "analysis" at this point in time with a two months build screams like having an agenda to me. What a shame.

Why exactly? DF isn't in the business of selling products. It's completely fair to present a pre-release build in an analysis provided it is noted as being pre-release and is followed by an article when the game is finished.

I wrote that Splatoon article a couple weeks back. That game is also a couple months from shipping and the build was pre-release. The tests simply showed that, two months out, the game produces a completely stable 60fps with little problem. It should give people confidence that Nintendo has hit their target ahead of schedule.

With Project Cars we see that there is still work to be done and I think we're all interested in seeing how the final game turns out. There's nothing wrong with taking a peek at performance levels prior to release especially if the final game winds up showing a massive improvement. It would be a victory if it could be reported that the frame-rate saw a huge increase by release, wouldn't it?

Honestly, with the state so many games are released in these days, I think it's a damn good thing to shine some light on potential issues prior to release. If Bloodborne had been analyzed a couple months prior to release perhaps enough people would have kicked up complaints about the frame pacing issues and they may have been fixed before launch.

Besides (again), doesn't DF belong to Eurogamer who decided not to review anything else than the final (and maybe Day1-patched) edition of a game?

It's not a review, is it?

Are people seriously arguing that we should just give developers the benefit of the doubt with this stuff when we've been let down time and time and time again over the past year? So many games screwed up on release. It's better to shine a light on the problems as early as possible, I say.

 

[Three]

Do you have any objections on that?

Yeah, matter of fact I do. You being unnecessarily hostile to me, the artcles premise and the game.

the only unprofessional thing imo that DF did, is to fuel the console war by declaring "a clear winner" when both versions ...suck?

One sucks a lot more than the other. I'm not sure how you find that of all things unprofessional.

its a console racer, until now with a framerate that pretty much can be anything. so, enjoy your "win"

I mean that's kind of the point of the article, right? You've not had a problem with them in the past. You've participated in them in the ps3/360 gen.

But now it's console war bullshit and I should "enjoy my win". It's not my win, it's not console war bullshit. You're making it console war bullshit.

 

[DD]

They should offer the option to lock it on 30 FPS for those who doesn't enjoy framedips. =B

 

[SMOK3Y]

What is that white streak in the pic? Is anybody else seeing it? It only appeared after I reloaded the image.

Track HUD

 

[cackhyena]

Was the person driving the XB1 version drunk? Jesus, that was some shit driving.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

It's not a review, is it?

Well, you can put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig. And if you look around (at some posts) the damage is done.

 

[Megasoum]

Yeah this is bullshit... EG/DF used an old build.

Quote from Andy Garton (pCARS Developement Director)

To be up front - even in the latest version, there are occasional framerate drops in worst case scenarios. The vast majority of the time though it's a smooth 60fps. The article neatly ignores that and focuses hard on those worst case scenarios. The recent camera and render bridge changes (which aren't in the EG build of course) make a significant difference to perceived smoothness, as well as improving control/gameplay when FPS does drop.

The devs are REALLY pissed that soembody gave an old ass build to EG instead of the final build. They are working actively to get the real final build into VVV and Gamersyde's hands to produce real 60fps videos to show what the game really looked like instead of that BS.

 

[transformer]

But there is a very clear winner (with this version, that is)? The PS4 advantage is huge.

I think there are two clear losers in this analysis. Neither Xbox One or PS4 performance is up to par in this build. For a good sim racing experience you need a near perfect frame rate. Thankfully, as you eluded to, it is from an old build and I'm sure much has improved since then. Perhaps this is insight into why the game was delayed a couple of times recently.

 

[Jimrpg]

so a GTX970 is now a midrange card? Its a high end card realistically - stuff like the Titan is a ridiculous-end card

It's $300-$350 on Amazon. i think that's pretty reasonable.

 

[Paz]

Anybody claiming there is any fault with DF for doing analysis is really just plain wrong, here are the facts:

1. The publisher of the game sent DF the build, there is no way for DF to know how old it is or if a newer build exists that drastically changes things.
2. The publisher of the game told DF that the build was submission quality AKA this is the version they send to Sony and Microsoft to double check before printing discs, and at no point in certification will Sony or Microsoft bounce it because it runs at 45fps instead of 60 (They are looking for critical errors and TRC/TCR violations)
3 DF note at the very top of the article that this is not the release version of the game and explain what state the publisher told them it was in, which is very fair.


Now that the analysis has brought up some performance issues we are getting comments from the developer that it was an old build or not representative of the final games performance, which is all well and fine for them to say but at the exact moment in time that DF made this article they had no way of knowing this would be the case. Plus there's no way of knowing what validity there even is to the developers comments until they supply a new build to DF, which we have no confirmation of at this time.

If you think anything wrong happened here then the fault lies entirely with the publisher sending old poor performing builds and telling DF that it was submission quality.

 

[GHG]

the only unprofessional thing imo that DF did, is to fuel the console war by declaring "a clear winner" when both versions ...suck?

on the other hand, I dont really know how "professional" a youtube channel can be, when they have seen and played these things as they were and NEVER mentioned a word about "in-progress development, framerate problems that need to be addressed". (remember, in rain framerate is really very very far from 60, let alone that its never constant at all. I mean, its a racer, you SHOULD notice. single play with many cars too)
a mention of these "in progress things", thats good reporting imo, 20 days before launch. eating it up and just saying "oh wow!", well, not that very good.

Both versions don't suck though...

You can set the number of cars to a Forza/GT style 16 cars and I'm sure you will end up with 60fps pretty much across the board.

You could even go a step further and turn the weather off Forza style (set it to midday and sunny) and have a full grid of cars and have no issues. They even explained that was the case in the article.

People are acting like solid 60fps is not possible in the game when it clearly is as long as you don't race with 43 cars.

 

[Rising_Hei]

I'm thinking that MS should have sent over some help like they did with Destiny, because goddamn.

There's a near constant double digit difference in frame-rate when it really drops.

Good grief...

No help can hide the fact that ONE is a worse machine...
What wouldn't feel right is seeing disparity between versions, like in Destiny.

 

[R3TRODYCE]

Wow both versions perform bad.

 

[nib95]

Given how ambitious it is with the number of cars in races, I'm not too bothered by the PS4 version, though they should perhaps offer an option to lock the framerate at 30fps for those that want it. In any case, in certain scenarios some of those drops are pretty severe, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice any more graphical fidelity. It looks to hold 60fps pretty well in other scenarios.

 

[Hendrick's]

Just curious, is racing with 40+ cars something that would happen a lot or are these edge case scenarios?

 

[p3tran]

I mean that's kind of the point of the article, right? You've not had a problem with them in the past. You've participated in them in the ps3/360 gen.

But now it's console war bullshit and I should "enjoy my win". It's not my win, it's not console war bullshit. You're making it console war bullshit.

its the second time you write this, about ps360.
do you feel it strengthens your argument? because it does nothing actually, other that trying to pin an agenda on me.

as I said before, a fluctuating framerate in a sim racer is a NO for me.
in this perspective, declaring a "clear winner" on a version that fluctuates less,
that's in my opinion a Pyrrhic victory aimed at those who live for console wars.
and as I said, this is the only thing I find wrong in df article. (I find it useful, as it informs me NOT to blindly preload the game)
again I will say, all you that now suddenly want to crucify DF, you are having double standards in my opinion since DF was never crucified for other, more early and non 'near final' ..preliminary analyses

Both versions don't suck though...

You can set the number of cars to a Forza/GT style 16 cars and I'm sure you will end up with 60fps pretty much across the board.

You could even go a step further and turn the weather off Forza style (set it to midday and sunny) and have a full grid of cars and have no issues. They even explained that was the case in the article.

People are acting like solid 60fps is not possible in the game when it clearly is as long as you don't race with 43 cars.

I could do that and pray to god, OR, I could get it on pc if final console versions still behave that way.
I ve written this stuff before.

 

[GHG]

Just curious, is racing with 40+ cars something that would happen a lot or are these edge case scenarios?

Edge case scenarios where you do custom races as far as I know.

I could do that and pray to god, OR, I could get it on pc

Get it on PC as long as you have a gtx 680 equivalent or better.

 

[danowat]

Just curious, is racing with 40+ cars something that would happen a lot or are these edge case scenarios?

I've asked the same question a few times, I was interested how the career races were setup in terms of AI numbers and weather.

 

[hesido]

Be happy to drop PS4 to 900p to help frame rate. Sod the 1080p

Not if the thing is CPU limited when that many cars are involved (physics simulation for every car can be costly)

 

[Three]

its the second time you write this, about ps360.
do you feel it strengthens your argument? because it does nothing actually, other that trying to pin an agenda on me.

as I said before, a fluctuating framerate in a sim racer is a NO for me.
in this perspective, declaring a "clear winner" on a version that fluctuates less,
that's in my opinion a Pyrrhic victory aimed at those who live for console wars.
and as I said, this is the only thing I find wrong in df article.
again I will say, all you that now suddenly want to crucify DF, you are having double standards in my opinion since DF was never crucified for other, more early and non final ..preliminary analyses

I wrote the ps360 thing because it doesn't help your now inconsistent view of these sort of articles and leads on to the second point; That these articles are not merely for those who live for console wars but those who can decide which to get of the two when given the choice. Unless you consider yourself to be somebody who lives for console wars the first point draws attention to the fact that you yourself used these articles in the past that declared winners and had no problems with them. You are making it about console wars now.

 

[Marlenus]

Why exactly? DF isn't in the business of selling products. It's completely fair to present a pre-release build in an analysis provided it is noted as being pre-release and is followed by an article when the game is finished.

I wrote that Splatoon article a couple weeks back. That game is also a couple months from shipping and the build was pre-release. The tests simply showed that, two months out, the game produces a completely stable 60fps with little problem. It should give people confidence that Nintendo has hit their target ahead of schedule.

With Project Cars we see that there is still work to be done and I think we're all interested in seeing how the final game turns out. There's nothing wrong with taking a peek at performance levels prior to release especially if the final game winds up showing a massive improvement. It would be a victory if it could be reported that the frame-rate saw a huge increase by release, wouldn't it?

Honestly, with the state so many games are released in these days, I think it's a damn good thing to shine some light on potential issues prior to release. If Bloodborne had been analyzed a couple months prior to release perhaps enough people would have kicked up complaints about the frame pacing issues and they may have been fixed before launch.


It's not a review, is it?

Are people seriously arguing that we should just give developers the benefit of the doubt with this stuff when we've been let down time and time and time again over the past year? So many games screwed up on release. It's better to shine a light on the problems as early as possible, I say.

Early performance previews are fine. When describing the build though DF states

As a disclaimer, we're told by Bandai Namco's PR staff that the 19GB build in test here is of 'submission' quality. A final certification pass is ongoing at Sony and Microsoft's offices, and we're still shy of a last word on whether this is what we can expect on launch. At the very least, our captures here show Project Cars in its final stages of development, but as ever, certain points are apt to change as we hone in on its release.

It makes it sound a whole lot newer than a February build and much closer to the release build. Now granted if the Bandai Namco staff were incorrect and have given DF mis-information then the article was written in good faith but there has been plenty of time between the devs saying it is an old build lacking performance optimisations and now to put in a quick update on the article to clarify the status of the build. That has not happened yet and is where I find it unprofessional.

 

[p3tran]

I wrote the ps360 thing because it doesn't help your now inconsistent view of these sort of articles and leads on to the second point; That these articles are not merely for those who live for console wars but those who can decide which to get of the two when given the choice. Unless you consider yourself to be somebody who lives for console wars the first point draws attention to the fact that you yourself used these articles in the past that declared winners and had no problems with them. You are making it about console wars now.

its very clear we cannot come to an understanding.
please proceed

 

[pager99]

poor AF again on ps4 hopefully it's an oversight and is corrected by launch but is anyone really expecting a 60 lock with 44 cars on track in the rain

 

[Qassim]

On an optimistic note, Project Cars' range of lighting effects is impressive. Both consoles boast an extensive visual effects menu to tweak each aspect of its post-process pipeline. Though not as full-bodied as the PC's full graphics menu, where e can expect traditional textures, shadows and geometry toggles, we do get a level of flexibility here rarely seen on console. Extras like crepuscular rays, bloom and lens flare are all fair game for a player to tweak themselves - and there's even a field of view slider for each camera type. We enable all post-process effects for our tests, but the actual impact (if any) on PS4 and Xbox One performance for each setting is an area we hope to investigate on release.

That's quite cool, more options are rarely a bad thing (as long as good defaults are chosen for console players).

 

[Respawn]

Black fences exclusive to PS4

Well you know 900p doesn't matter.

 

[nib95]

Be happy to drop PS4 to 900p to help frame rate. Sod the 1080p

I doubt that'd even lock it. It shouldn't be too surprising that handling a grid of that many cars, especially in heavy rain with all the effects etc, would be so taxing on the system. It's probably the reason no other console Sim racer yet offers anything similar (I honestly can't even see GT7 or F6 offering this many cars on the track). Hell, Forza 5 doesn't even have rain racing at all, let alone the massive grid. With Forza 5 offering a max of 16(?) cars on the grid, and GT6 15 (?). What Project Cars is offering is pretty unprecedented, but I do think they should offer a 30fps lock option for those that want a more consistent experience in the busy heavy rain races.

 

[Fenris95]

Should have delayed it.

Why? That won't fix under-powered hardware. It's a next gen title on old-gen hardware, what do you expect?

In fact I think this should be sort of a wake up call to console gamers that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes about how powerful their system's are.

 

[p3tran]

Why? That won't fix under-powered hardware. It's a next gen title on old-gen hardware, what do you expect?

In fact I think this should be sort of a wake up call to console gamers that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes about how powerful their system's are.

wake up call for who?
if these "old gen" things, are what they plan to CASH ON, then they should fix/optimize/code differently in my opinion.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Ouch. I'm surprised they even allow for huge fields of cars if the consoles can't handle it when weather kicks in. That's usually the sort of thing that gets sacrificed in the name of consistent performance.

This is very PC-like in terms of the options and variables, except that it's not the sort of game that should be. It's a racing sim, where performance is absolutely king. Devs shouldn't allow people to crash the framerate down below 40-45fps.

That is why i didn't want this kind of thing in the game. They should have stuck to their performance target and based the console versions around that throughout.

Why? That won't fix under-powered hardware. It's a next gen title on old-gen hardware, what do you expect?

In fact I think this should be sort of a wake up call to console gamers that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes about how powerful their system's are.

Its on the dev to optimize performance.

 

[op_ivy]

looks like i'll be avoiding the rain then. bummer

 

[Daffy Duck]

In fact I think this should be sort of a wake up call to console gamers that they've had the wool pulled over their eyes about how powerful their system's are.

Have we really?

If I'm not mistaken both Ryse and The Order: 1886 look absolutly gorgeous!

 

[GHG]

wake up call for who?
if these "old gen" things, are what they plan to CASH ON, then they should fix/optimize/code differently in my opinion.

Fine. They should have done the following on the xbox one version then:

- dropped the resolution to 720p
- removed the option to do 43 car races, cap it at 15-20
- remove the weather options

Problem solved. Consistent 60fps all round.