Yeah I would have traded out one of the Mustangs (Boss) for one :'(
would love to have a nice full field of LMGT level cars...The Vettes, and Vipers (RIP) especially
Yeah I would have traded out one of the Mustangs (Boss) for one :'(
As a general rule our car models have four LODs that are the same on both console and PC:
LODA 60k triangles
LODB 25/26k
LODC 4k
LODD 0.8k
on PC there is an extra LOD that we call "LODX" - this is enabled for the player car only when using the Ultra Setting for Vehicle Detail. LODX models are 200-300,000 triangles!
LOD switching is mostly driven by distance of the car from the camera, and is not dependent on the # of cars in a race.
I think what SMSRenderTeam says in fact is not invalidating my screenshots. Real screenshots, by the way. They talk about real numbers but omitting another real numbers too in a kind of smoke screen that leaves all parties happy. Take a look a how he explains car LODs differences in his last message.
They talk about real numbers but omitting another real numbers too in a kind of smoke screen that leaves all parties happy. Take a look a how he explains car LODs differences in his last message.
Project CARS uses cascaded shadow maps (CSM) with the fixed sizes at the resolutions I outlined in the earlier post. Both cars and track/track side objects are rendered into the CSM resulting in a *single* cascaded map containing all world geometry - then in the light pre-pass keylight (the sun!) stage the opaque shadows are baked from this map. In such a system it is simply not possible to have different resolutions for cars and track shadows, so your statement here is just .. well ... impossible! (I'm pretty sure there are other render coders here who can verify that this is the case with CSM)
Since you are a community member at WMD you can use the -gold option and bring up the shadow maps via the f1 debug menu (deferred/sun shadow CSMs) and see for yourself the system as I describe.
It's a little disappointing that you don't post without more due diligence, since it's clear you have a talent for comparitive analysis, but it's also clear you aren't a graphics programmer... because of such a basic misunderstanding of how contemporary shadow systems work... leading you to such a basically flawed conclusion.
The differences in "edges" as you call them has nothing to do with resolution whatsoever. The edge artefacts you highlight are more generally known as Shadow acne which are a direct result of shadow bias settings with the differences being due to different settings.PS4 uses a higher precision map but at the same resolution as PC medium, so the bias settings are slightly different. It's pretty pointless trying to continually correct you since you're interpeting images without the knowledge set to describe what you are seeing. FWIW We'd much rather spend time here giving the community more technical details and answering some of your questions, rather than battling over myopic rendering comparisons...
Two more HQ videos from Team VVV on gamersyde
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_project_cars_back_on_ps4-16497_en.html
SPA in the rain, and full Azure Coast.
So my fellow investors we are in the final days and soon the game will be here. Anyone expect to make any money at all? I only invested 60 euro or whatever was needed to be a full members and get the full game for free so I don't expect to get anything back really. 3 years ago I was just like hell yeah a good pc sim game that isn't crazy over the top like iracing or other stuff like that. If I get 5-10 dollars back I would be happy really.
Yeah, I'd rather have people claiming things like they know what they're talking about than a dev explaining us how things work...The tone of these responses is leaving a bad impression with me. I understand how frustrating it can be if a third party is off-base on a comparison, but when the impression from like-for-like comparisons is being dismissed like this, the explanations provided here almost feel spurious, even if they're completely accurate in the technical sense. I'm the furthest thing from a visual snob, but I just wanted to share my outlook on the actual communications.
Yeah, I'd rather have people claiming things like they know what they're talking about than a dev explaining us how things work...
This is beyond ridiculous. Someone is making asumtions, and the dev responsible for the job can't fight him back with data.That's not enough for you, it seems. He needs to do it like he's a machine and nobody is throwing shit at his work too.
Are we crazy calling on devs putting people in their place? He only proved how empty the claims of those "in the known" use to be, and how misleading they can be for the community and costumers as a whole, and you know what? I really appreaciate that he took the time to do it and I wish more devs did it.
Yeah, I'd rather have people claiming things like they know what they're talking about than a dev explaining us how things work...
This is beyond ridiculous. Someone is making asumtions, and the dev responsible for the job can't fight him back with data.That's not enough for you, it seems. He needs to do it like he's a machine and nobody is throwing shit at his work too.
Are we crazy calling on devs putting people in their place? He only proved how empty the claims of those "in the known" use to be, and how misleading they can be for the community and costumers as a whole, and you know what? I really appreaciate that he took the time to do it and I wish more devs did it.
The tone of these responses is leaving a bad impression with me. I understand how frustrating it can be if a third party is off-base on a comparison, but when the impression from like-for-like comparisons is being dismissed like this, the explanations provided here almost feel spurious, even if they're completely accurate in the technical sense. I'm the furthest thing from a visual snob, but I just wanted to share my outlook on the actual communications.
The list is..tiny...and only has 2-3 cars I really like...and is missing every single one of the cars on my "cars I love / own / will own" list.
Is it possible we'll get Corvette/Chevy and Ferrari eventually?
And after that people wonder why we don't have more devs that are super open about the developpement process... FFS
Yeah, I'd rather have people claiming things like they know what they're talking about than a dev explaining us how things work...
This is beyond ridiculous. Someone is making asumtions, and the dev responsible for the job can't fight him back with data.That's not enough for you, it seems. He needs to do it like he's a machine and nobody is throwing shit at his work too.
Are we crazy calling on devs putting people in their place? He only proved how empty the claims of those "in the known" use to be, and how misleading they can be for the community and costumers as a whole, and you know what? I really appreaciate that he took the time to do it and I wish more devs did it.
We've had a community of tens of thousands during the development over at WMD and that dev process is built on transparency and direct engagement with the forum members, so we are well accustomed to a very wide range of feedback!
Someone posted carefully executed comparison images showing how the settings and platforms compared. The SMS person called out some labeling inaccuracies, which is good, but the substance of the comparison was still useful for people who wanted to know how they compared. The tone itself is another issue.
I think the tone you're sensing was after he politely corrected him and yet he continued to disagree with him rather than accept that he was being corrected by fact.
So frustration to that is what we are reading there afterward.
I hope everyone is checking out the VIP section at Green Man Gaming to pick this game up for $38.00 instead of $50.00 on Steam.
I am SO torn between which version to get (Xbone or PS4). Nothing i've read yet makes my decision any easier, either. Seems both versions run great.
This.I think the tone you're sensing was after he politely corrected him and yet he continued to disagree with him rather than accept that he was being corrected by fact.
So frustration to that is what we are reading there afterward.
LOD base distances (as requested above)
LODA 7.0m
LODB 20.0m
LODC 50.0m
LODD 500.0m
So for example, a car 7.0 metres away from the camera will switch to LODB.
When the vehicle detail settings are set to High or Ultra the LOD switching distance is doubled from this baseline e.g. the game switches to LODB after 14.0 metres so it uses the higher resolution car model for double the distance!
Console uses the medium detail setting for LOD switching (e.g. the base values), but all other console vehicle detail settings are equivalent to PC high - for example, the rate at which reflection cube-maps are updated.
When set to the low vehicle detail setting on PC, LODA is dropped entirely - allowing the game to run with reduced detail with better performance on low-end systems.
Thank you so much for this.
No problem!
Off to the gym here now, but will back on-line for a few hours this evening. So folks are welcome to post up more questions about our rendering technology and I'll do my best to answer them later on.
1. The base track layer e.g. The Tarmac!
2. The road markings e.g. White lines
3. Dirt layer / tyre marks
And since they are separate passes it's possible for each layer to have different Anisotropy settings - 4x, 4x, 2x respectively, with white lines being up'd to 8x subsequently.
Regarding posting more questions, I am also curious about Dictator93's question. Did 8x AF for all texture surfaces have a significant performance hit on consoles, if you are allowed to say? I think the question there is because AF usually "seems", as a player, to have very little performance impact from 2x to 4x to 8x.Thx for posting again.
That is a crazy amount of manual tuning just to get performance in place for AF. Obviously your team find the performance gains generated by this to be worth the time, effort, and IQ loss on individual pieces.
What exactly is making AF so expensive that you cannot just leave it at 8x (all texture surfaces) for the consoles?
Someone posted carefully executed comparison images showing how the settings and platforms compared. The SMS person called out some labeling inaccuracies, which is good, but the substance of the comparison was still useful for people who wanted to know how they compared. The tone itself is another issue.
It's not warming me to the rendering team that's for sure.
Very few people are graphics pipeline programmers, so for the vast majority of people what Maldo is showing us is infinitely more relevant than whatever technical excuse there is for it appearing that way.
I think the key piece of knowledge that is missing in the various analysis about the track anisotropy is that they all consider the track to be a single textured piece of geometry.
This is not the case - the track is rendered in three passes:
1. The base track layer e.g. The Tarmac!
2. The road markings e.g. White lines
3. Dirt layer / tyre marks
And since they are separate passes it's possible for each layer to have different Anisotropy settings - 4x, 4x, 2x respectively, with white lines being up'd to 8x subsequently.
It looks more then fantastic on consoles, especially with 60fps with most advanced car physics on consoles. I personally wouldn't trade the luxury of better graphics compared to how fast i can start to play it on PS4, with limited time to play (wife and kid). In about 8 sec, with suspend and resume mode, I can be in the game .
I guess gamers forgot that it's gameplay that counts, not graphics, regardless of system one uses to play.
The only thing that matters really is the handling and, well the framerate as well. Other than that I don't really mind.
The biggest difference between the PS4 version and PC, to me is 32 players online and individual car leaderboards. That´s what will make me double dip. It´s just weird to see so much graphical talk about a game that has 1000 other more important things to be discussed.
First off thanks for the SMS technical detail. I know it does not matter to everyone, but I appreciate the time taken.
I also hope that we can all get past the initial frustrations and continue be polite with each other.
Regarding posting more questions, I am also curious about Dictator93's question. Did 8x AF for all texture surfaces have a significant performance hit on consoles, if you are allowed to say? I think the question there is because AF usually "seems", as a player, to have very little performance impact from 2x to 4x to 8x.
Since it was already touched over on WMD briefly, can you explain the V-Sync 'window mode'? It sounds very interesting, especially after I had brief issues with V-Sync causing some input issues when I worked on one of the consoles (we managed to fix it in the end, and we were using middleware)?And that's the thing - when you are making a 60FPS game lots of small optimisations can add up to a significant win. 7 individual items that might add up to a 5% overall speed-up is a lot of engineering effort, but when you only have 16.67ms to render a frame that's what you have to do. Keep grinding, keep pushing for every small win.
The list is..tiny...and only has 2-3 cars I really like...and is missing every single one of the cars on my "cars I love / own / will own" list.
Is it possible we'll get Corvette/Chevy and Ferrari eventually?
Since it was already touched over on WMD briefly, can you explain the V-Sync 'window mode'? It sounds very interesting, especially after I had brief issues with V-Sync causing some input issues when I worked on one of the consoles (we managed to fix it in the end, and we were using middleware)?
I noticed the lack of Ferrari as well and tried looking into it a while back. I believe it's mainly due to licensing costs for Ferrari being astronomical along with Ferrari not wanting to "play ball." (I want to say that was an actual dev response but I'm not 100% on that) It's a real shame too for a an actual sim racing game to be missing such a heavy hitter. Plenty of other cars I like on the list but man I do love my Ferraris.
There are 3 cars I always lean towards first....Ferrari is one, Ford is one (thankfully in), and Chevy's Corvettes (multiple years). I've owned both Mustangs and Corvettes. One day I hope to buy a Ferrari...so having them in "sims" is something I look forward to.
PS4 version is cheaper, and likely to run better.
Where is the PS4 version cheaper?
There're two Ford Mustang in the gane: Boss 302R1 and Cobra TransAm. Add five other Fords: Escort Mk1RS1600, Focus RS, MkIV, Sierra RS500 Cosworth and Zackspeed Capri.
There are 3 cars I always lean towards first....Ferrari is one, Ford is one (thankfully in), and Chevy's Corvettes (multiple years). I've owned both Mustangs and Corvettes. One day I hope to buy a Ferrari...so having them in "sims" is something I look forward to.
It was useful to the extent that it reduced the subject being compared to a "bite-sized" format. In Maldo's original comparison, the reader would be left with the (wrong) impression that PS4 is utilizing AF 2x instead of the more complex system SMS is using.
With all due respect to Maldo, comparing screenshots of various PC quality settings and the PS4 under similar conditions can produce results that aren't necessarily true even if they appear to be visually.
Is it "infinitely more relevant" in the sense that uninformed individuals can enter the thread, look at the screenshot comparison, and come away with a conclusion that may not be true? Of course, but the rendering team's technical explanation can help one understand why the images in Maldo's comparison appear the way they do.
To say that an explanation more accessible to the layperson is more valuable by virtue of its accessibility is a flawed conclusion. Many technical systems are involved in creating the (moving) image produced; distilling those aspects into a static image comparison as Maldo has done causes nuance to be lost.
In Maldo's AF comparison, he highlighted what he believed to be an AF setting of 2x. The rendering team explained the various separate levels of AF applied in producing the PS4's image.
Quoted here:
While Maldo admitted the rendering team's explanation was plausible, attempting to reduce image quality comparisons to a series of static images (especially before release) is what promotes this misunderstanding.
By now the PS4 AF situation has become a meme on GAF, how many occasions where developers are castigated for using AF 2x, 4x or no apparent AF are similar to this situation but they can't discuss it? That doesn't stop laypeople from coming in and shitting on developers.
Treating developers like this when they attempt to explain these things to you and ignoring what they say as an excuse is why more developers aren't more open and transparent to the community. This is the reason why publishers aren't transparent and only release "bullshots."
As I was typing this, SMS Rendering Team answered Maldo's lingering LOD distance question and Maldo found their response satisfactory. In the future, can we try to give people the benefit of the doubt before accusing them of avoiding the question?
@MaLDo, I'm asuming you have the PS4 version?
If I had the PS4 version, comparisons could have been more detailed
The video compression makes impossible a more precise comparisson
...using gamersyde direct feed video...
There're two Ford Mustang in the gane: Boss 302R1 and Cobra TransAm. Add five other Fords: Escort Mk1RS1600, Focus RS, MkIV, Sierra RS500 Cosworth and Zackspeed Capri.
Sorry. Read that as luckily. My bad xDThat's why I said "thankfully" they're in the game