• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

pixelbox
(10-29-2017, 08:58 AM)
pixelbox's Avatar
Btw, it is light bounce.
dumb
Member
(10-29-2017, 10:59 AM)
dumb's Avatar
some pictures of the Willow Springs environments ^^





cooldawn
Member
(10-29-2017, 11:41 AM)

Originally Posted by rodrigolfp

I said they don't want damage in GTS, not the franchise. Learn to read.

Oh and GT5 damage pre patch has still the best damage in sims? So ,post some flying wheels/partys like GP2 or the PC2 Audi R8.

Meanwhile i will post some pre GT5 damage model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVHe2hzclB8

I don't know what this video is supposed to point out. Making observations, though:
- yes, Pre-Gran Turismo 5 racing games did have damage
- Gran Turismo 5 had an all-new dynamic procedural damage system
- Post-Gran Turismo 5, even in 2017, were back to how it was pre-Gran Turismo 5

No matter how you spin it, that's not progress. Damage systems are poor across the board. It amazes me you think Project CARS 2 is impressive when it essentially looks like something pre-Gran Turismo 5.
BlitzerRadic
Member
(10-29-2017, 11:47 AM)
BlitzerRadic's Avatar

Originally Posted by rodrigolfp

Oh sure manufacturers do not want their cars to depict damage yet PC1 and 2, AC, R3E all have damage. Even Forza 7 has some parts flying off. Took out of your ass that sims doesn't decipt damage? Its only PD that doesn't "want" damage.

I'm sure it's true that manufacturers dictate the terms on how much damage PD can display as GT is much bigger and mainstream than all those other games put together. It also makes sense that damage modeling is uniform across all vehicles even if some manufacturers permit more damage than others because of balancing reasons. I am assuming that visual damage would have an affect on performance otherwise you could have wrecks that can finish in first place which would be pretty weird.
dr guildo
Member
(10-29-2017, 12:33 PM)
dr guildo's Avatar

Originally Posted by dumb

some pictures of the Willow Springs environments ^^











Trackside details are amazing for a 60fps racer. Great showcase here Dumb, like your TOD comparison in previous page, this game delivers so much !!
3D crowd everywhere is unbelivable ! Even in the balloon !!
Stillmatic
Member
(10-29-2017, 12:56 PM)
Stillmatic's Avatar
Some more GTS gameplay screengrabs:







rodrigolfp
Member
(10-29-2017, 01:54 PM)
rodrigolfp's Avatar

Originally Posted by cooldawn

I don't know what this video is supposed to point out. Making observations, though:
- yes, Pre-Gran Turismo 5 racing games did have damage
- Gran Turismo 5 had an all-new dynamic procedural damage system
- Post-Gran Turismo 5, even in 2017, were back to how it was pre-Gran Turismo 5

No matter how you spin it, that's not progress. Damage systems are poor across the board. It amazes me you think Project CARS 2 is impressive when it essentially looks like something pre-Gran Turismo 5.

It amazes me that you can't see that GT5 damage system is still one of the wost in the sim market. even a game (GTR2) older than GT5 has more impressive damage with even flying parts , while GT5 have "titanium" cars. ;)

Originally Posted by BlitzerRadic

I'm sure it's true that manufacturers dictate the terms on how much damage PD can display as GT is much bigger and mainstream than all those other games put together. It also makes sense that damage modeling is uniform across all vehicles even if some manufacturers permit more damage than others because of balancing reasons. I am assuming that visual damage would have an affect on performance otherwise you could have wrecks that can finish in first place which would be pretty weird.

So the manufacturers dictating that damage must be worse than most other sims just harms the game. We may only cry.
Jamesways
Member
(10-29-2017, 02:41 PM)
Jamesways's Avatar

Originally Posted by cooldawn

It amazes me you think Project CARS 2 is impressive when it essentially looks like something pre-Gran Turismo 5.

The cracked windshields in pCARS2 drive me crazy. Especially on the GT3 cars. Not very accurate since they use polycarbonate or a plastic blend that doesn’t exhibit cracks like that.
rodrigolfp
Member
(10-29-2017, 03:25 PM)
rodrigolfp's Avatar

Originally Posted by TheAdmiester

I think the point is that neither of the cars you posted are road going models. The manufacturers most likely have different terms for the racing models.

Regardless, I don't see any doors opening on those Mercedes models, which is consistent with one of the posts linked in your quote.

Point should be obvious. Still much better than any GT game damage model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNHBy-B1oNc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6sHA5pEloM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k0zZD75eFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1g8Dym6nsE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqSkspwJxc4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOajH5VTOzM

Now show me some better damage model on any road cars on GT5/S.

Originally Posted by Neo 007

@Rodrigolfg Seems to me dude,you need to stay well away from Granturismo.
Whatever you see or experience in game is just going to ruin your day.

Obviously got a "Bug-Bear" with it ...(And thats ok)
So yeah..do yourself a favour and play something you enjoy.

Make sure the door doesn't hit you up-side the head on the way out.
Have a nice day :)

But I am staying away from GT until it becomes a good sim. This is a graphics face-off thread and not a GT acquisition thread ;)
Bliman
Junior Member
(10-29-2017, 03:33 PM)

Originally Posted by pixelbox

interesting...

You have to admit that GTS is missing lot's of features to be considered a sim.
That's not a shame, it's just not correct to call it a sim.
It's not totally useless (the same for Forza) because it can interest people in racing and give them the first steps towards a sim.
I considered this important because GTS and the other GranTurismo's (and Forza's) spend much more resources to graphics and it is much more important to them then other features (look at scapes), therefore it is remarkable that Project Cars 2 still looks great although it comes with a price of resources so that it can only achieve that graphical fidelity on PC.
Actual
Member
(10-29-2017, 03:46 PM)
Actual's Avatar
GT sport
Winning by 23 milliseconds online:

Fighting for position:

Detail:
cooldawn
Member
(10-29-2017, 04:10 PM)

Originally Posted by rodrigolfp

It amazes me that you can't see that GT5 damage system is still one of the wost in the sim market. even a game (GTR2) older than GT5 has more impressive damage with even flying parts , while GT5 have "titanium" cars. ;)

I said this yesterday...

Originally Posted by cooldawn

Right now I've not seen a racing game come close to that system yet today most people are pleased with Project CARS 2's implementation, even Forza Motorsport 7's (yes, which is better than Gran Turismo Sport's) when Gran Turismo 5's was in a different league.

...clearly indicating even Forza Motorsport 7 has a better damage system than Gran Turismo Sport.

The over-arching take away is you're happy with damage systems as they are right now, even though they are stuck in a state of generations past.
rodrigolfp
Member
(10-29-2017, 04:17 PM)
rodrigolfp's Avatar

Originally Posted by cooldawn

I said this yesterday...


...clearly indicating even Forza Motorsport 7 has a better damage system than Gran Turismo Sport.

The over-arching take away is you're happy with damage systems as they are right now, even though they are stuck in a state of generations past.

Uh? I was talking about GT5 there, not GTS. Learn to read. And where i said that i am happy with current damage systems? I am saying that there are much better damage models than the best GT model.
pixelbox
(10-29-2017, 04:34 PM)
pixelbox's Avatar

Originally Posted by rodrigolfp

Uh? I was talking about GT5 there, not GTS. Learn to read. And where i said that i am happy with current damage systems? I am saying that there are much better damage models than the best GT model.


You're just arguing for absolutely nothing. We've explained it was a design choice clearly due the rules set by manufacturers. PD decided all vehicles displays very light damage for uniformity. We've explained and showed videos of PD being actually capable of this and still you choose to not comprehend. It's not a limitation, it's a design choice that you don't agree with. Get over it.
pixelbox
(10-29-2017, 04:36 PM)
pixelbox's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bliman

You have to admit that GTS is missing lot's of features to be considered a sim.
That's not a shame, it's just not correct to call it a sim.
It's not totally useless (the same for Forza) because it can interest people in racing and give them the first steps towards a sim.
I considered this important because GTS and the other GranTurismo's (and Forza's) spend much more resources to graphics and it is much more important to them then other features (look at scapes), therefore it is remarkable that Project Cars 2 still looks great although it comes with a price of resources so that it can only achieve that graphical fidelity on PC.

Other than tuning what are the differences? I don't have assess to those racing games.
rodrigolfp
Member
(10-29-2017, 04:51 PM)
rodrigolfp's Avatar

Originally Posted by pixelbox

You're just arguing for absolutely nothing. We've explained it was a design choice clearly due the rules set by manufacturers. PD decided all vehicles displays very light damage for uniformity. We've explained and showed videos of PD being actually capable of this and still you choose to not comprehend. It's not a limitation, it's a design choice that you don't agree with. Get over it.

Me and the meaning of this thread give zero fucks about the reasons why they do a bad damage system.
pixelbox
(10-29-2017, 05:35 PM)
pixelbox's Avatar

Originally Posted by rodrigolfp

Me and the meaning of this thread give zero fucks about the reasons why they do a bad damage system.

I thought this thread was about graphics and not physics. Silly me. Oops!
rodrigolfp
Member
(10-29-2017, 05:48 PM)
rodrigolfp's Avatar

Originally Posted by pixelbox

I thought this thread was about graphics and not physics. Silly me. Oops!

Thanks for the laughs. Visual damage = part of graphic features. Keep the good defence force. I am loving.
BigLee74
Member
(10-29-2017, 06:20 PM)
You have to learn, in this sad excuse for a thread, what does and what doesn't constitute graphics will change to suit the (PS4 exclusive) game of the moment. The GTS damage system is laughable compared to all of its peers.
MilkyJoe
Banned
(10-29-2017, 06:30 PM)

Originally Posted by BigLee74

You have to learn, in this sad excuse for a thread, what does and what doesn't constitute graphics will change to suit the (PS4 exclusive) game of the moment. The GTS damage system is laughable compared to all of its peers.

Ha ha
Space_nut
Member
(10-29-2017, 06:36 PM)
Space_nut's Avatar

Originally Posted by shandy706

Looks like the same 2D Trees/Leaves/(and some grass) tricks from DC. Bit more 2D though. Those reflections are really rough.





Just a very, very vague kinda looks like the environment low-res reflection. At 1080p quality it's very bad.

Interesting ;)
dumb
Member
(10-29-2017, 06:40 PM)
dumb's Avatar
.



pixelbox
(10-29-2017, 06:41 PM)
pixelbox's Avatar
Haha you live in NJ like me. I wonder have ever came across you before.
Bliman
Junior Member
(10-29-2017, 06:48 PM)

Originally Posted by pixelbox

Other than tuning what are the differences? I don't have assess to those racing games.

I think if you looked at the video that you already have a pretty good idea why Project Cars 2 is a sim and why GTS is not.
It's not something difficult to find out.
And I don't want to diss GTS it is just a different game with a focus much more oriented to graphics and more the car collector (although this iteration it has taken a step back and PC2 a step forward)
Space_nut
Member
(10-29-2017, 07:12 PM)
Space_nut's Avatar

Originally Posted by pixelbox

Haha you live in NJ like me. I wonder have ever came across you before.

Eww creeper
pixelbox
(10-29-2017, 07:24 PM)
pixelbox's Avatar

Originally Posted by Space_nut

Eww creeper

You sound a lot like my friend. Like just like him.
pixelbox
(10-29-2017, 07:25 PM)
pixelbox's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bliman

I think if you looked at the video that you already have a pretty good idea why Project Cars 2 is a sim and why GTS is not.
It's not something difficult to find out.
And I don't want to diss GTS it is just a different game with a focus much more oriented to graphics and more the car collector (although this iteration it has taken a step back and PC2 a step forward)

Can really say I see.
cooldawn
Member
(10-29-2017, 09:10 PM)

Originally Posted by rodrigolfp

Uh? I was talking about GT5 there, not GTS. Learn to read. And where i said that i am happy with current damage systems? I am saying that there are much better damage models than the best GT model.

Yeah, sorry. I usually spell it out so it catches me out.

Gran Turismo 5's damage model, as when it ceased to be updated, is a shadow of it's former self. Gran Turismo Sport's damage model is insignificant in the whole scheme of things.

Gran Turismo 5's damage model introduced in a patch is had the potential to be better than everything else. At the time it was better than anything else, it just needed time to be fine-tuned. If you released that damage model in it's original form for Gran Turismo Sport it would be laughed at. However, if Polyphony Digital were given the grace, time and development it would be way ahead of everything else right now.

Mechanically it still is far ahead of anything else right now, such is the nature of a dynamic procedural damage system compared to pre-defined scratches, deformation and panel loss.
Apex
Member
(10-29-2017, 10:22 PM)
Apex's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bliman

I think if you looked at the video that you already have a pretty good idea why Project Cars 2 is a sim and why GTS is not.
It's not something difficult to find out.
And I don't want to diss GTS it is just a different game with a focus much more oriented to graphics and more the car collector (although this iteration it has taken a step back and PC2 a step forward)

Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/16080...on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-acad...heyre-too-fast
dr guildo
Member
(10-29-2017, 11:16 PM)
dr guildo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Apex

Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/16080...on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-acad...heyre-too-fast

Very good post !
Bliman
Junior Member
(10-30-2017, 01:52 AM)

Originally Posted by Apex

Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/16080...on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-acad...heyre-too-fast

You have very good points and I agree with most of them.
But in this thread it is about graphics and I don't find it just that they both are called sims when they are both very different beasts.
There is a reason why DriveClub has such graphics or why GTS looks better on consoles then Project Cars 2 on consoles.
And it would be just to say why it is so (the complexity under the hood is one of the main reasons, although money and resources and probably other stuff counts to).
Otherwise it becomes, yeah but they are both sims so it is pretty weak from the developers that Project Cars 2 looks inferior on consoles then GTS.
But they also don't go to the same depth as sim.
And offcourse GTS and Forza can be useful to create muscle memory, using lines , etc..
But if you simplify it you could say the same thing about Forza Horizon (and maybe Driveclub to) you also should take the right lines, you should also learn to shift.
But at a more simpler level.
I have no problem to call them all sims as long at it is clear that the one is simulating much more and therefore it has consequences for the graphics to on consoles.
Vroadstar
Member
(10-30-2017, 02:46 AM)
Vroadstar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Apex

Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/16080...on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-acad...heyre-too-fast

Now that's a post!
pixelbox
(10-30-2017, 04:05 AM)
pixelbox's Avatar

Originally Posted by Apex

Depend of your sim needs. If you priorize the driving part and want to learn car control, high speed driving or develop muscle memory, for fun, track days or before competing in low profile or amateur events, GTS with the right settings and a wheel is a great training tool. If you're an amateur or a pro and wants to learn a real track that you never drived or raced before (gears, speed, breaking points, lines, etc), GT is a good tool to start with an advantage over other drivers.

But if you are an hardcore racing fan, limited to play games, that looks more for a sim work-out and not just the fun part of driving or racing, an extreme simulation of a professional race, GT is just half of the experience: no detailed damage in engine or parts, no manual pitting, no tire puncture or flat spots, no dynamic track conditions (oil, dirt, etc), no change of weather during a race, no engineer-like car setups, etc.

Both options are simulators. We don't have to forgot that out there all comercial sims are called "games", and often the only thing that makes them a real tool and not a toy to a pro driver with no interest in playing games is the hardware (not the software) where they are running: motion rigs with g-forces, direct wheels with high torque, realistic weighted pedals, big screens depicting 1:1 scales, realistic working cokpits, etc. At those levels discussing about small physics differences or visual damage is pointless. Also in the past the so called professional simulators were missing many of the visual features that games does have today, even arcades, many pro-sims still doesn't have a visual damage model and would be very silly to don't call them simulators by that reason.

Some interesting read:
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/16080...on-playstation
https://jalopnik.com/5982998/gt-acad...heyre-too-fast

Expected no less.
rodrigolfp
Member
(10-30-2017, 02:05 PM)
rodrigolfp's Avatar

Originally Posted by cooldawn

Yeah, sorry. I usually spell it out so it catches me out.

Gran Turismo 5's damage model, as when it ceased to be updated, is a shadow of it's former self. Gran Turismo Sport's damage model is insignificant in the whole scheme of things.

Gran Turismo 5's damage model introduced in a patch is had the potential to be better than everything else. At the time it was better than anything else, it just needed time to be fine-tuned. If you released that damage model in it's original form for Gran Turismo Sport it would be laughed at. However, if Polyphony Digital were given the grace, time and development it would be way ahead of everything else right now.

Mechanically it still is far ahead of anything else right now, such is the nature of a dynamic procedural damage system compared to pre-defined scratches, deformation and panel loss.

There are videos on the link to GT planet about the visual damage system showing how poor it is even after some patches. Read the discussion too.



Originally Posted by pixelbox

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threa...-races.132933/

Regarding damage. Extensive read too.

Driver86
Junior Member
(11-05-2017, 03:35 PM)







MilkyJoe
Banned
(11-05-2017, 05:53 PM)

Originally Posted by pixelbox

Hmmm

We call that cherry picking. He obviously missed that torn tree has already been posted.
pixelbox
(11-05-2017, 07:11 PM)
pixelbox's Avatar

Originally Posted by MilkyJoe

We call that cherry picking. He obviously missed that torn tree has already been posted.

Looks pretty one to one to me
Driver86
Junior Member
(11-06-2017, 12:04 PM)
In FM7 those buildings are totally different from the real ones



VirtuaIceMan
Junior Member
(11-06-2017, 01:43 PM)
VirtuaIceMan's Avatar
Re: Nurburgring, you can compare to my 17 location screenshot comparison of PC game versions of the track, over here: http://www.racedepartment.com/thread...mpared.138599/

n.b. still need to add World Of Speed.
rodrigolfp
Member
(11-06-2017, 04:10 PM)
rodrigolfp's Avatar

Originally Posted by VirtuaIceMan

Re: Nurburgring, you can compare to my 17 location screenshot comparison of PC game versions of the track, over here: http://www.racedepartment.com/thread...mpared.138599/

n.b. still need to add World Of Speed.

Very nice. Would be really good if you could include GT5/6 and GTS.
Driver86
Junior Member
(11-21-2017, 04:25 PM)
from gtplanet

FM7

GTS
Liliana Eileen
Member
(11-21-2017, 05:57 PM)
Liliana Eileen's Avatar

Originally Posted by Driver86

from gtplanet

😂😂😂

Sums up all your posts quite nicely.
Senua
Banned
(11-21-2017, 08:07 PM)
Lol yea Forza 7's track side stuff is so bad.

A HUGE step down from Horizon 3's detailed enviroments.
ShapeGSX
Member
(11-21-2017, 08:09 PM)
ShapeGSX's Avatar
That looks like a LOD thing. You can see the low LOD models if you zoom in with the camera from far away in Forza.
Senua
Banned
(11-21-2017, 09:17 PM)
Forza 7 has some nice textures though.

Caddle
Member
(11-21-2017, 09:48 PM)

Originally Posted by SpeedOfNuts

The light in Forza totally ruins it for me. The cockpit shake is also pretty bad.

It beats the car floating on air. Even the outside view the car isn't reacting to the road in gts. It's like the car is just gliding over the tarmac.
Caddle
Member
(11-21-2017, 09:49 PM)

Originally Posted by Senua

Lol yea Forza 7's track side stuff is so bad.

A HUGE step down from Horizon 3's detailed enviroments.

Look at the same tracks featured in each game and tell me the tracks look better in gts.
Senua
Banned
(11-21-2017, 09:51 PM)

Originally Posted by Caddle

Look at the same tracks featured in each game and tell me the tracks look better in gts.

I don't have GTS so kinda hard for me to compare properly.

I'm more comparing Forza 7 to Horizon 3, Horizon seemed way more detailed to me overall.
Caddle
Member
(11-21-2017, 10:31 PM)

Originally Posted by Senua

I don't have GTS so kinda hard for me to compare properly.

I'm more comparing Forza 7 to Horizon 3, Horizon seemed way more detailed to me overall.

Yes the environments are more detailed. Not only over Forza 7 but gts also.

Thread Tools