Support NeoGAF

[eso76]

If the game a zero blur added, fast moving objects will still blur in your head naturaly if you are not able to track them. You wont all of a sudden have a, unnatural power to track fast moving objects pefectly becuase the game doesnt add blur. Why does everyone think this is the case??

60 frames per second is not fast enough to blur in your head.
I think it has been proven by lucasfilm studios that human eye can pick single frames every 80th / sec; so a 60fps animation will still be perceived as a sequence of 60 distinct images. A little blur will make things look much better and more real; i'm definately a huge motion blur fan, regardless ; not only it makes animation smoother, but it also makes graphics a lot less 'artificial'/'obviously computer generated'.
I can understand those who prefer a crisper look at a clean 60fps, though, but in this case and when you're going for photorealism motion blur has to stay.
Plus Forza 2 won't look as blurred as pgr3 being 60fps, thus requiring much shorter blur 'trails'.

 

[Gek54]

When you're going for photorealism motion blur has to stay.

Except I do not want PHOTOrealism. I think people are taking that term way to literal now. I want to feel immersed as if I am really there on the track with my TV being a window to a reality, I dont want to feel like I am looking through a stupid camera with crap exposure.

If that trailer is representative of the "subtle blur" that will be used in the game then its total ass and I will be immensley dissapointed if I cant switch it off.

 

[shpankey]

the question is, why even add motion blur when all developers on 360 have said it is extremely costly in terms of performance? the effect isn't even like by most gamers anyhow. it costs a ton to do. so why do it?

just leave it out and use all that power for something else that is more universally appreciated (again, Anisotropic Filtering).

 

[chespace]

The blurring in the trailer is not representative of what blurring in Forza 2 will look like.

I actually think Table Tennis does a very good job of motion blur. It's very subtle, and you only notice it as you quit out of a replay and it pauses your character mid-motion momentarily.

 

[skybaby]

Oh look, blur!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB2Gs3U8myI

 

[Big Takeover]

60 frames per second is not fast enough to blur in your head.
I think it has been proven by lucasfilm studios that human eye can pick single frames every 80th / sec; so a 60fps animation will still be perceived as a sequence of 60 distinct images. A little blur will make things look much better and more real; i'm definately a huge motion blur fan, regardless ; not only it makes animation smoother, but it also makes graphics a lot less 'artificial'/'obviously computer generated'.
I can understand those who prefer a crisper look at a clean 60fps, though, but in this case and when you're going for photorealism motion blur has to stay.
Plus Forza 2 won't look as blurred as pgr3 being 60fps, thus requiring much shorter blur 'trails'.

This is the correct answer to "why blur?" (minus the "photorealism" bit). The implementation is far more tricky. In fact, I think it can be incredibly complex. After all it's a 2d view of a 3d world.

I think the sticking point for most people is there needs to be a fixed gaze, within a fixed POV for a game to incorporate (peripheral) blur. Say your in-game gaze is 30 degrees, and the track consumes the entire 30 degrees, at a distance which is realistic for traveling at speed. Looking away from the track takes you out of the moment of belief. The game must start peripheral blurring at a set angle whether you looking at that area of the screen or not. Of course that doesn't mean that in real life the track side object wouldn't be blurred, but your brain can "stabilize" as best it can, what you are looking at. If you are looking where you should be looking while driving, it isn't much of an issue.

And that is just peripheral, which is different from blurring within your gaze (looking spinning wheels for example). How fast does something have to be traveling across your gaze before you can no long track it and it blurs? Can a dev dynamically account for every would be blurring moment? What about north-south blurring? Irregular track surface causes your vision to blur. Hell, engine vibrations prevent you from seeing clearly in real life.

How far would you need to go to create a semi-realistic, fixed gaze (unrealistic by nature), experience having to be limited to 60Hz. You could argue that the entire screen should have artificial blurring in varying degrees to accurately represent what doing 180mph in a F430 is like.

All that said, I welcome motion blur. I think 60fps + motion blur is going to provide an extremely immersive experience. It may be impossible to do accurately, but to properly conceal any sense of frame rate would be a pretty slick accomplishment. IMO, better than unrealistically clear vision, with a constant reminder of frame rate. It obviously has to be done right though. I think people should reserve judgement until we get a better understanding of how well it can be done.

Che, I would love to hear more about the motion blur approach from your team, if and when that can be arranged.

 

[GuessWho]

im loving this thread and everythign about forza 2 is awesome but i have one question about the graphics. In forza1 as much as the graphics were awesome, i found them to be a little soft, it looked like the cars were painted or something, so i don't know if u can reveal or not che, but maybe tell us if forza 2 will have the same look.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Oh look, blur!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB2Gs3U8myI

I guess you missed this part:

I want to feel immersed as if I am really there on the track with my TV being a window to a reality, I dont want to feel like I am looking through a stupid camera with crap exposure.

As long as it is not as extreme as the PGR3 blur-a-thon I am OK :lol

 

[Gek54]

I think the sticking point for most people is there needs to be a fixed gaze, within a fixed POV for a game to incorporate (peripheral) blur. Say your in-game gaze is 30 degrees, and the track consumes the entire 30 degrees, at a distance which is realistic for traveling at speed. Looking away from the track takes you out of the moment of belief. The game must start peripheral blurring at a set angle whether you looking at that area of the screen or not. Of course that doesn't mean that in real life the track side object wouldn't be blurred, but your brain can "stabilize" as best it can, what you are looking at. If you are looking where you should be looking while driving, it isn't much of an issue.

^This right here, so eloquently stated, is the main concern. Thank you BCD2. Seriously, everyone should read that 5 or 6 times.

If the game can track and blur objections moving so fast that no human possible could track and they require a filler image to fill a giant gap between the frames then that is one thing but as soon as a game starts to blur for the sake of "enhancing the sense of speed" then there is going to be problems. Bluring objects in the supposed peripheral zone is a big giant NO-NO.

The blurring in the trailer is not representative of what blurring in Forza 2 will look like.

Good to hear about the trailer, the blur in that was horrible.

Like shpankey said, I am much more interested to hear that there will be lots of AF, v-sync, and no visible texture loading/pop-up.

 

[GhaleonEB]

so is this the official Forza 2 thread or something?

 

[FightyF]

I am playing GT4 right now and if I stare at the car ahead of me the track and walls blur but if I track a point on the track or on a wall that object stays perfectly cear.

And that shouldn't happen. In real life, it would be blurred and you cannot track it with your eyes.

I think the best way for us to end this debate is for you to go out driving.

 

[sonycowboy]

so is this the official Forza 2 thread or something?

It certainly looks like Che considers it to be so. Rebumping the thread every couple of days

But, I've gotta say, the word does keep getting better and better.

 

[Gek54]

And that shouldn't happen. In real life, it would be blurred and you cannot track it with your eyes.

I think the best way for us to end this debate is for you to go out driving.

Depends on the speed the object is traving in relation to my eyes and center of focus. You should be able to track a spot on the road fairly well even at higher speeds without blur.

I drive every day at 80-90mph on my 1 hour commute and at that speed I can make out the individual hairs on a tarantula until it is right beside me as I swerve around it.

Like BCD2 was talking about, as soon as you look away from from the fixed gaze point, an artificial peripheral blur will unnaturally distort your sense of speed. So if Forza 2 forces us to deal with an artificial periphereal motion blur then be prepaired to keep your eyes fixed to the center of the screen if you want to maintain any kind of suspension of disbelief. Should we even ask for lots of track details?

 

[chespace]

It certainly looks like Che considers it to be so. Rebumping the thread every couple of days

But, I've gotta say, the word does keep getting better and better.

I had something to show GAF. Would you rather I started a new thread? Maybe I should!

 

[Big Takeover]

If the game can track and blur objections moving so fast that no human possible could track and they require a filler image to fill a giant gap between the frames then that is one thing but as soon as a game starts to blur for the sake of "enhancing the sense of speed" then there is going to be problems. Bluring objects in the supposed peripheral zone is a big giant NO-NO.

Yeah, I think that blur for the sake of "enhancing speed" is not a great idea, but I do think blurring to mask a sense of frame rate has potential. The whole point is to blur what your brain would conceive as "frame rate", which happens to coincide with what would also blur in real life.

Peripheral blurring is kind of strange, but no stranger (debatable) than sensing frame rate. Neither can truly represent what it is like to actually be there, seeing with your own eyes. So it comes back around full circle to your preference. At this point we have every racing game vs. PGR3. Not much of a sample size representing blur. Not to mention it's just different, and you know how much people love different. *rolleyes*

Forza2 with it's 60 frames and motion blur should be a good test to see if the whole thing has legs, or is just a rendering fad. Even still, if they happen to blow it (I'm hoping they won't!) it will be difficult to separate the implementation from the effect itself.

Until we get wrap around screens which operate at 120Hz, with 120fps racing games (Oh shit, I didn't just say that), your eyes will need to be tricked (or not). I think it is a good thing that devs are trying to explore new techniques.

On a similar, but side note, creating half a dozen or so "in-game views" has to be a bitch when dealing with blur. I think PGR3 had some issues there. Although, if you were to be suspended 15 feet above a speeding car the whole world would blur like a mofo. ;-)

I drive every day at 80-90mph on my 1 hour commute and at that speed I can make out the individual hairs on a tarantula until it is right beside me as I swerve around it.

lol. How did I know that was the case? ;-)

 

[eso76]

Except I do not want PHOTOrealism. I think people are taking that term way to literal now. I want to feel immersed as if I am really there on the track with my TV being a window to a reality, I dont want to feel like I am looking through a stupid camera with crap exposure.

If that trailer is representative of the "subtle blur" that will be used in the game then its total ass and I will be immensley dissapointed if I cant switch it off.

Now, don't take my PHOTOrealism expression literally. I am not talking about something that replicates reality as seen by a camcorder or on tv, so i guess i misused the term photo..that's not what i meant. I also find that a lot of the effects used in videogames lately tend to make them look like they were filmed with a camera rather than seen through your eyes (that's the case with lens flares, overused HDR and bloom etc) but a slight mb trail will make videogame graphics look more lifelike and smoother. Reality is not as crisp as seen in videogames, especially things that move extremely fast; if you look out of your car's window when traveling fast you'll sure as hell see things getting blurry and 60fps is not fast enough for your eyes to perceive this "natural blur", you'll still see a sequence of 60 distinct, crisp, images, and that's not realistic at all.
A little blur would help and it really improves videogames look A LOT if well implemented, i stated many times that it's probably the effect that has really set next gen graphics apart from the last more than any other.

But of course, everyone will be happy if it can be disabled.

 

[Gek54]

if you look out of your car's window when traveling fast you'll sure as hell see things getting blurry and 60fps is not fast enough for your eyes to perceive this "natural blur", you'll still see a sequence of 60 distinct, crisp, images, and that's not realistic at all.

...nor is giving up the ability to track an object across the screen without losing its clarity. Seems only one or the other is possible. Id much rather be able to track a crisp image in a sim when my senses are already limited with only a small angle view and simple controler feedback.

After so many laps I would think it would be natural to want to look around at the trackside objects and the road is not always in the center of the screen.

I like how we have gone from MS telling us that 'people cant tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps' to '60fps by itsself is not good enough'.

 

[Confidence Man]

So are we going to have to wait until X06 to get some pictures?

 

[Russ]

When calculating accurate blur the game would have to assume your distance to the objects in the virtual reality being displayed on the screen. Unless the game tells you how far to sit from your TV/monitor then getting a realistic look with blur would be hit or miss. The same problem with blur is shared with DOF, these effects force you were to look.

 

[Blimblim]

So are we going to have to wait until X06 to get some pictures?

My guess would be TGS. Or maybe the Game Convention in Leipzig since the fist Forza sold very well in Europe.

 

[shpankey]

videos too please.

 

[chespace]

My guess would be TGS. Or maybe the Game Convention in Leipzig since the fist Forza sold very well in Europe.

My guess would be a magazine or website with the first exclusive.

And yeah, Forza 1 kinda went gangbusters over in Europe.

 

[CountZeroInt]

I bought Forza very skeptically because I was always a huge Gran Turismo fan, but man did they win me over.

I don't care if it's wussy or novice or what, but racing lines were PURE F'ING GENIUS. It takes the frustration out of racing and actually teaches you how to drive, along with the driving avatars. When you hit a wall in Forza, you hit a wall, not bounce off of it like GT, but with Forza they give you enough driving training and racing guidance through the racing lines that you eventually NEVER EVER hit walls, or even other cars.

Most people play Gran Turismo this way: Buy car #1, race track X 10000 times, buy Skyline GT-R, proceed to annihilate everything in sight even while bouncing off walls and crashing into everything in sight. It's like the JRPG style compared to MMORPG "you want that skill? You're going to earn it biyatch, now walk that way and get me some leaves of magical fleeting power". I don't want to be Level 99 and cast Meteo for 9999 damage, I want to be challenged but still have fun.

I will make a grand statement about Forza:

It had the best difficulty curve, of ANY game, EVER.

If you haven't played Forza 1, run, don't walk, run and go buy it. It's that good.

The second you feel you are ready to turn the racing lines off, it is like stepping up from pilot training to sitting in the driver's seat. Seriously, brilliance at work = Forza.

 

[Blimblim]

My guess would be a magazine or website with the first exclusive.

And yeah, Forza 1 kinda went gangbusters over in Europe.

Let me guess, a zdnet publication?

 

[Aryuken]

Of course it sold well here in europe. GT sells better in europe than in Na/Japan too if i'm not mistaken.

Europeans are the best drivers, and the most enthusiastic about cars...hell we have the best cars.

 

[krypt0nian]

Let me guess, a zdnet publication?

"I don't want to go to work today..."

"...all my videogames..."

 

[Big Takeover]

Of course it sold well here in europe. GT sells better in europe than in Na/Japan too if i'm not mistaken.

Europeans are the best drivers, and the most enthusiastic about cars...hell we have the best cars.

800mil
300mil
130mil

You probably sell the most toilet paper too, but that doesn't mean you have fantastically dirty asses.

 

[Gek54]

In one of the best updates yet, Che heads down to the dyno to give us some insight into the sound capturing for Forza2: Turn 10 Dyno Spotlight: Eric Brannfors' 1988 BMW E24 M6 Monster

 

[shpankey]

i want the cars to sound like those PGR3 sound samples they released (of which, the game itself sounds nothing like btw). when that day arrives then i will be happy. to me, sound is the most laking thing in racing games, by far.

 

[chespace]

In one of the best updates yet, Che heads down to the dyno to give us some insight into the sound capturing for Forza2: Turn 10 Dyno Spotlight: Eric Brannfors' 1988 BMW E24 M6 Monster

Thanks Gek. We'ved dyno'ed a ton of cars so yeah, look forward to more profiles shortly.

One thing I'm learning as I try my hand at this job is that motorsports is, at its very core, a violent kind of activity. You're essentially talking about combustion -- and when you stare at that activity in its rawest form, sometimes it's kind of scary. Like when faced with a force of nature, you find yourself feeling very vulnerable.

 

[Flo_Evans]

edit: wtf? I posted nothing! I was going to say where is the MP3 of the car?!!? but it looks like it broke :lol

oh yeah and is there a car list yet?

 

[Wafflecopter]

What the hell is going on with the text?

 

[chespace]

What the hell is going on with the text?

What do you mean?

 

[Gek54]

What do you mean?

Prolly this:

 

[chespace]

Prolly this:

eh?

 

[Gek54]

eh?

replace the **** with fuck

 

[chespace]

replace the **** with fuck

okay, but even so, i have no idea what that screenshot of gaf does for me.

what is it supposed to represent?

 

[BuG]

When whoever posted 'what is wrong with text' he was probably referring to the post above, which at the time most likely consisted of nothing much like the screenshot. This can be backed up by the nothing poster's edit in which he states that he apparently posted a nothing post. It does nothing for you and nothing for anyone.

PS: STFU about blur.

 

[eso76]

i want the cars to sound like those PGR3 sound samples they released (of which, the game itself sounds nothing like btw).

yep, i've always wanted to say that. Pgr3 engines don't sound anything like those samples they released, unfortunately.

 

[eso76]

...nor is giving up the ability to track an object across the screen without losing its clarity. Seems only one or the other is possible. Id much rather be able to track a crisp image in a sim when my senses are already limited with only a small angle view and simple controler feedback.

After so many laps I would think it would be natural to want to look around at the trackside objects and the road is not always in the center of the screen.

I like how we have gone from MS telling us that 'people cant tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps' to '60fps by itsself is not good enough'.

you can't track objects when they are passing by fast. you can track them only as long as they are far from your pov, thus apparently moving slower. With motion blur, slow moving objects shouldn't appear blurred at all, it will only blur something that's moving fast and you wouldn't be able to track with your eyes anyway. It's all up to how well it's implemented, but give these guys a chance, they sound like they know what they're doing.
In any case, making blur an option you can turn on and off should be very easy and would make everyone happy.

I never had a problem with pgr3, anyway...when i want to look around at the trackside objects i switch to photo mode

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

I work with a guy who knows nothing about 99.99999% of shit in the world. His only interest being cars and he bought an Xbox for Forza. Very causal player, but he's going to ****ing flip when he sees this game.

 

[Stink]

Motion blur should be used to fill gaps between frames, but not overused like in PGR3.

Try pausing some fast moving TV, it's a very natural thing.

 

[thorns]

a question about the wheel? how useable is it to use on your lap? (if you're using it from the sofa for example?) I read in the peter moore interview that you can use it on your lap as well. That would really kick ass.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

a question about the wheel? how useable is it to use on your lap? (if you're using it from the sofa for example?) I read in the peter moore interview that you can use it on your lap as well. That would really kick ass.

It looks like it does

 

[winalot]

Excuse my lack of knowledge but how come it's so difficult for a game to get engine sounds right, even with real life dyno recordings?
PGR3 being the prime example, especially after showing those audio targets all that time ago.

 

[tirant]

Che, have you thought of including an RSS FEED to track the updates on your web site?

 

[shantyman]

All I want is a pic...

 

[Slo]

Gimme screens!

 

[shantyman]

I don't know if Che can answer this, but will it have all thge cars from the first one? Forza is the only game I know of that has my car (Mazdaspeed Protegé).

I bought Forza very skeptically because I was always a huge Gran Turismo fan, but man did they win me over.

I don't care if it's wussy or novice or what, but racing lines were PURE F'ING GENIUS. It takes the frustration out of racing and actually teaches you how to drive, along with the driving avatars. When you hit a wall in Forza, you hit a wall, not bounce off of it like GT, but with Forza they give you enough driving training and racing guidance through the racing lines that you eventually NEVER EVER hit walls, or even other cars.

Most people play Gran Turismo this way: Buy car #1, race track X 10000 times, buy Skyline GT-R, proceed to annihilate everything in sight even while bouncing off walls and crashing into everything in sight. It's like the JRPG style compared to MMORPG "you want that skill? You're going to earn it biyatch, now walk that way and get me some leaves of magical fleeting power". I don't want to be Level 99 and cast Meteo for 9999 damage, I want to be challenged but still have fun.

I will make a grand statement about Forza:

It had the best difficulty curve, of ANY game, EVER.

If you haven't played Forza 1, run, don't walk, run and go buy it. It's that good.

The second you feel you are ready to turn the racing lines off, it is like stepping up from pilot training to sitting in the driver's seat. Seriously, brilliance at work = Forza.

I agree with this- the game was so much more fun and rewarding than GT. I love GT, but I think Forza bettered it in every way.

 

[Gek54]

Motion blur should be used to fill gaps between frames, but not overused like in PGR3.

Try pausing some fast moving TV, it's a very natural thing.

Reality>>>>TV