S0ULZB0URNE
Member
I don't think they can....The fur is there in gameplay… I mean you can fire up the game and see yourself.
I don't think they can....The fur is there in gameplay… I mean you can fire up the game and see yourself.
Let's put this fur talk to rest. Thats why I took this screenshot from a random youtube video. Fur is present in gameplay and no moment goes away.
That's how fud starts even with tons of visual evidence some people try to push the narrative
Yep the numbers of gates come from close minded peoples...Yep this one is bad.Is this the evolution of puddlegate, furgate?
What other "gates" have we had? I also remember a grassgate for gta 5, but i think there was a real difference between the versions with that.
Is everyone losing in this thread because you are very upset about video game graphics or is everyone winning because you're all giving each other the attention some so badly seem to need.
You are second only to ricky (mr vrs, vrr, s) when it comes to posting slanted takes in the technical threads.I don't care to gain respect from any of you. You don't respect me in the slightest despite my career. At this point, I don't care.
I'd give it to R&C too but it has large peaks and troughs especially for such a short game. There is a ton of room for improvement going forward.
The open-ish world levels look pretty crap in general imo, this one in particular:
There is stuff that is SSR instead of RT that really spoils the look of certain areas:
I don't think the fur is particularly impressive (in game at least):
And there is definitely some bullshotting going on in photo-mode even if it is just boosting the res to 4k and moving out shadows:
In-game:
Photo-mode:
I do really like Forza but the AA used can really spoil things especially in the jungle scenes.
Thanks very much for saying what's going on here. It's good for someone to see behind the veil.
I am gonna play it right nowi can see the fur, better than ratchet.
Imma go pick up a gamecube
Fuck next gen
I'd give it to R&C too but it has large peaks and troughs especially for such a short game. There is a ton of room for improvement going forward.
The open-ish world levels look pretty crap in general imo, this one in particular:
That's not a fact at all.
Fact does not mean fact anymore same way literally means figuratively. Lol
The fact of the matter in question.
No idea what you are trying to say here.
Ok, I was agreeing with Riky that Flight Simulator should've at least been mentioned, but now I think I know why it wasn't, I think FS was released in 2020, not 2021 but I have to check. Anyway the point is you said DF didn't list it either, somehow negating that it over rules everyone else's opinion. I simply stated that just because DF didn't list, doesn't change the fact that we believe it should be there.
Ok, I was agreeing with Riky that Flight Simulator should've at least been mentioned, but now I think I know why it wasn't, I think FS was released in 2020, not 2021 but I have to check. Anyway the point is you said DF didn't list it either, somehow negating that it over rules everyone else's opinion. I simply stated that just because DF didn't list, doesn't change the fact that we believe it should be there.
I'm curious as to what graphical updates Flight Sim got in 2021. I read about a performance upgrade but nothing about a visual update.
Edit: By graphics update I mean something similar to what happened with Metros new lighting system for example.
Ok, I was agreeing with Riky that Flight Simulator should've at least been mentioned, but now I think I know why it wasn't, I think FS was released in 2020, not 2021 but I have to check. Anyway the point is you said DF didn't list it either, somehow negating that it over rules everyone else's opinion. I simply stated that just because DF didn't list, doesn't change the fact that we believe it should be there.
And that would have been a valid point, but that's not what you said. If that is what you meant then no problem.
It didn't. The console versions also run at lower settings than what's available on the PC version so from a technological perspective we saw nothing new on the console versions in 2021.
I'm curious as to what graphical updates Flight Sim got in 2021. I read about a performance upgrade but nothing about a visual update.
Edit: By graphics update I mean something similar to what happened with Metros new lighting system for example.
It didn't. The console versions also run at lower settings than what's available on the PC version so from a technological perspective we saw nothing new on the console versions in 2021.
You're free to believe what you want, doesn't make it correct.
I think it had something to do with the way it pulls real-time information from maps or something to that extent.
That's something that was done in the 2020 version. What I read about was a big update that improved performance due to managing memory better. The article didn't mention any visual upgrades.
So now we're back at opinions being facts/correctness? It wasn't listed not because the visuals didn't deserve it, but because it was a 2020 release, not 2021.
Gotcha, wasn't really following it. I downloaded the game and flew by my house and other shenanigans, but I stopped playing it. I have a cousin that's an absolute nut with simulators, has been since like the first one, but not really my cup of tea. But even so, the time I spent with it was more fun that I expected simply by visiting hurricanes or famous landmarks like the Pyramids of Giza
Drakan was the shit! Good times. Janky as fuck. Like a Deathtrap Dungeon with wings. Loved it.yooo that's Drakan !!
There is stuff that is SSR instead of RT that really spoils the look of certain areas:
So why haven't @NXGamer or Digital Foundry mentioned it in their tech breakdowns?
15 hours game with large variety of levels, environments and cgi like graphics.I'd give it to R&C too but it has large peaks and troughs especially for such a short game. There is a ton of room for improvement going forward.
The open-ish world levels look pretty crap in general imo, this one in particular:
There is stuff that is SSR instead of RT that really spoils the look of certain areas:
I don't think the fur is particularly impressive (in game at least):
And there is definitely some bullshotting going on in photo-mode even if it is just boosting the res to 4k and moving out shadows:
In-game:
Photo-mode:
I do really like Forza but the AA used can really spoil things especially in the jungle scenes.
I don't know what you're trying to show between these two.
Df did talk about the fur.
Gimme a sec and ill find it.
Nah, they just mentioned it. Iirc they seem to like it.About the fur disappearing during gameplay?
I read about the LODs but nothing about it being absent from gameplay.
Nah, they just mentioned it. Iirc they seem to like it.
3.55
Df fur talk
I never said they said, just that they talk about fur.Not seeing where they said it goes away. Basically they are saying that they are using Spiderman's Spline based hair technology and then show it during actual gameplay.
Some of the reflections disappear in the second picture when the object is out of view, that shows that these are SSR and not Ray traced reflections.
That's what they're showing.
Oh yeah almost every game with RT reflections uses SSR in a bunch of places as fallback.That's what i thought but it's really rather minor imo.
I never said they said, just that they talk about fur.
I know your convo was about vfx saying fur is degraded during gameplay, but thought ppl might be interested to hear what DF said about fur anyway.
Sorry for the confusion.
Oh yeah almost every game with RT reflections uses SSR in a bunch of places as fallback.
There's really nothing wrong with Insomniac doing it to get performance back where available.
I found that odd as well. These lists should be taken with a grain of salt though.He puts FH5 at number 3 but then says for a poster child for the seriesX its not good enough?
For the record, what I said was a hyperbolic statement due to the fact that the fur at the playable camera distance indexes a very low and short curve primitive proxy (i.e. a lower LOD) and therefore making it drastically inferior to the ingame cinematics and/or forcing the camera to zoom into a wall (which NXGamer was trying to show) when pushing Ratchet against a wall and rotating the camera around to force a higher level of detail. The fur during normal gameplay is extremely short and very far away and difficult to see any details. It takes up a very small region of pixels to render the scene. This produces a light load on the GPU when rendering the fur and keeps framerates high. Couple that with an inaccurate hair shading model (shared by every other game engine) and no ambient occlusion for self-shadowing and the hair becomes unimpressive to me.Sorry about that I thought I might have missed something that DF said. Anyways there isn't any proof from anyone that the fur is gone during gameplay. I did read speculation on better fur during cutscenes which is something that I believe can happen due to the devs having more resources during those moments.
I don't know what you're doing with those shots but they look way worse than anything I've seen when actually playing the game. I think Sargasso is probably the weakest stage graphically tbf, although imo it's still really good looking. It probably doesn't help that there's quite a bit of foliage and that looks like it's going to remain a problem to render well this generation.
I always found the other stage (Sarvali??) One of the nicer looking ones tbh. Beautiful colour scheme.
For the record, what I said was a hyperbolic statement due to the fact that the fur at the playable camera distance indexes a very low and short curve primitive proxy (i.e. a lower LOD) and therefore making it drastically inferior to the ingame cinematics and/or forcing the camera to zoom into a wall (which NXGamer was trying to show) when pushing Ratchet against a wall and rotating the camera around to force a higher level of detail. The fur during normal gameplay is extremely short and very far away and difficult to see any details. It takes up a very small region of pixels to render the scene. This produces a light load on the GPU when rendering the fur and keeps framerates high. Couple that with an inaccurate hair shading model (shared by every other game engine) and no ambient occlusion for self-shadowing and the hair becomes unimpressive to me.
I argued that the game should have been judged on actual normal gameplay visuals and the default camera distance from the viewer and not cinematics or cutscenes (which both NXGamer and DF did). But knowing how many people are on these boards, they took my hyperbolic statement and used it to fuel their usual trolling whenever my thoughts don't align with theirs.
I'm sorry, let me get this straight. So what you're saying is that because a game engine works as a game engine should and changes LODs based on distance to camera all of a sudden the graphics are not impressive?!? I get that you're a veteran in your field but it seems that real-time graphics are not your thing and they may never impress you. Even when real-time will look the way CGI looks now you'll still scoff at it since CGI will always be ahead due to its very nature so I still don't get what you're trying to prove here?!?For the record, what I said was a hyperbolic statement due to the fact that the fur at the playable camera distance indexes a very low and short curve primitive proxy (i.e. a lower LOD) and therefore making it drastically inferior to the ingame cinematics and/or forcing the camera to zoom into a wall (which NXGamer was trying to show) when pushing Ratchet against a wall and rotating the camera around to force a higher level of detail. The fur during normal gameplay is extremely short and very far away and difficult to see any details. It takes up a very small region of pixels to render the scene. This produces a light load on the GPU when rendering the fur and keeps framerates high. Couple that with an inaccurate hair shading model (shared by every other game engine) and no ambient occlusion for self-shadowing and the hair becomes unimpressive to me.
I argued that the game should have been judged on actual normal gameplay visuals and the default camera distance from the viewer and not cinematics or cutscenes (which both NXGamer and DF did). But knowing how many people are on these boards, they took my hyperbolic statement and used it to fuel their usual trolling whenever my thoughts don't align with theirs.