Thoughts about the graphics...

[XN-Sigma]

So, I was looking at the newer screens, and this one in particular caught my attention. I've been noticing this same problem on several screens from AC, while the tracks always look absolutely perfect, some cars look kinda cartoony depending on the reflections and/or lack of shadows, maybe the vibrance of the colors too, I'm not sure what it is, but it bugs me to no end.

Somehow videos recorded from a camera look more real for some reason, probably because the colors look more washed out and blurred.


So what are you guys' opinions about the current graphics? Need improvements? Yes? No?
And before anyone says "Who cares about graphics, the physics are what matters". Yeah well no, in a game that tries to simulate reality it is logical it should not only feel real but look real too.



PS. Sorry if this is stupid somehow, I'm half asleep here, going to bed now...

 

[Frank Rogge]

In my opinion it's a bit early for this discussion. Wait for the TechPreview, so that we have an first personal look on the sim.

 

[Senad Subasic]

I had similar thoughts myself, very plasticy, if that's a word.
But yes, still in progress, and no first hand experience. I assume it's not hard to change, and if it is, I also assume I won't be caring much when driving in a pack of M3s

 

[BanjoMaster]

I'm finding it hard to criticise the graphics at all to be honest. They're as close to photographic as I've ever seen for in-game stuff. If I had to pick fault at this stage, I'd say that everything's a bit too clean and showroom-sparkly. 'Tis a dirty business, racing, and I want to see more grime and debris on the cars and tracks. Not immediately, but further down the line, definitely

 

[Shadow Explorer]

The tracks indeed look perfect,but I was thinking the same thing about the cars
as it is mentioned in some pictures they look a bit out of place.

I would suggest some filters especially for replays,that simulate that camera\real life dullness. It looks very realistic.

 

[XN-Sigma]

I was looking at all screens again, trying to see which ones looked best to try to identify what exactly makes them better. So I found these:

These seem to be some of the best, I think it's because the materials look less "lighten up" and more shadowed. It may actually just be a matter of the lighting affecting the car materials depending on the time of the day. In pCARS for example I notice that different times of the day and also weather conditions give completely different results ranging from nice to ugly. So I guess we need to see the time cycle first hand to know how it really affects the graphics.

Now thinking about all this, and I remember reading the modding tools will be the same(or close to it) as the devs use, I wonder if we would be able to make custom shaders with these tools. This could allow for someone to make big graphical improvements over time, like seen in GTA4 using iCEnhancer (ENB Series).

 

[Kevin Cordice]

Maybe AC will update they graphic environment if "wanted" to in the future.

 

[Dinca Andrei]

......

Now thinking about all this, and I remember reading the modding tools will be the same(or close to it) as the devs use, I wonder if we would be able to make custom shaders with these tools. This could allow for someone to make big graphical improvements over time, like seen in GTA4 using iCEnhancer (ENB Series).

I am sure almost anything is possible but keep in mind,too much graphics improvement will kill the targeted PC hardware they aim for.
And in a SIM its much more important to be able to play the game as fluid as possible above 40-50 fps rather than struggling with low fps and extreme graphics.
For now the only barier in achieving perfection in gaming its the hardware and i am reffering on customers and common people like us that can not afford cutting edge technology.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I only have one issue with the graphics, not really an issue but if i had to nitpick, and obviously i do, i would say some smoothing is needed in the chrome.

This is original size, just looks a little bit rough and pixely in some places.
But overall, man it looks incredible!

Have to say as well it´s nice it actually reflects the world and not some fake thing.

 

[XN-Sigma]

I am sure almost anything is possible but keep in mind,too much graphics improvement will kill the targeted PC hardware they aim for.
And in a SIM its much more important to be able to play the game as fluid as possible above 40-50 fps rather than struggling with low fps and extreme graphics.
For now the only barier in achieving perfection in gaming its the hardware and i am reffering on customers and common people like us that can not afford cutting edge technology.

Well, just now I read in some tweet from Stefano that it seems he won't really touch on the lighting/shaders anymore or the graphic artists will kill him.
I also just asked him if the lighting/shaders could be modded, and he said it is "tricky".

About the "weight" of graphical improvements, if done by modders then it would be simply a matter of not getting the mod if it's too heavy.

I guess we just have to wait and see how it all goes.

 

[Dinca Andrei]

Well, just now I read in some tweet from Stefano that it seems he won't really touch on the lighting/shaders anymore or the graphic artists will kill him.
I also just asked him if the lighting/shaders could be modded, and he said it is "tricky".

About the "weight" of graphical improvements, if done by modders then it would be simply a matter of not getting the mod if it's too heavy.

I guess we just have to wait and see how it all goes.

Agree,i didnt said it should not be done,of course there is a choise on whether to install mods or not,i`ve only pointed out that most of the graphical improvements does not suit for most and should not be forced in vanilla(stock) game.
Its more like a bonus for those that realy can benefit over those changes.
I say it looks mighty good at this state and any changes on aspects may be done via updates in time.

Off topic:
Example its simple...In pC..s the graphics are pushed over the limit in the actual state and that brings high load even on medium PC specs with just a few cars on track.

 

[Shadow Explorer]

Not all things have great performance impact.
Some none at all...

Ambient Occlusion for rxample might have a lot,but I Would like to see that,even if the game runs on 20fps.

Since the game will be supported for years to come, I do not see why not,just add it and have the option to turn it off...

 

[Dinca Andrei]

...
Ambient Occlusion for rxample might have a lot,but I Would like to see that,even if the game runs on 20fps.

Since the game will be supported for years to come, I do not see why not,just add it and have the option to turn it off...

Are you sure you can handle those 20 fps in race...? I would definitely turn it OFF if it gets that much of an impact on my system.Under 40 fps is no joy.

 

[Shadow Explorer]

For the time being no,but as pc's become stronger,they will be to do it at decent frame rate.

It is also said that AC will be further developed through time,so its better to have a possibility open for the future,than not having it at all.

Generally I disagree with the post release development,only because the first release might be butchered.For example no weather,day night cycle, pitstops?

Those are basic stuff to be left out from a modern game.I'd rather see those than graphics nitpicking if you ask me...

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I will turn off stuff until i reach at least 100fps solid on three screens.

eye candy i´ll save for the videos.

 

[Dinca Andrei]

I will turn off stuff until i reach at least 100fps solid on three screens.

eye candy i´ll save for the videos.

That much ey?

 

[Hampus Andersson]

That much ey?

Preferably 130+ as the most common FPS, some dips at some corners i can live with but has to be a balance of somewhere around 100-130 for me to get the most out of the driving.

(i have three 120hz screens in case anyone wondering why i need that much)
With 60Hz you should be looking at 70+ solid fps.

 

[Dinca Andrei]

Preferably 130+ as the most common FPS, some dips at some corners i can live with but has to be a balance of somewhere around 100-130 for me to get the most out of the driving.

(i have three 120hz screens in case anyone wondering why i need that much)
With 60Hz you should be looking at 70+ solid fps.

That makes sence....

 

[Mr Whippy]

If the artists are using 'real' ranges for textures/IOR coefficients and things (which I'm sure they are), then ALL these issues should be resolvable via the tone mapping.

Depth of field, blurring (motion), vignetting, blooms, limited exposure range of some video/photo cameras (we use as reference) and all those effects are just that effects.

What effects you choose are up to you.

I always think though that games need to be clear on this. Ie, lens flares from a driving camera view are stupid. My eyes don't get lens flare. I just get a white out driving into the sun and it's hard to see.
Auto exposure doesn't want to crunch the scene down so it's dark in these cases, IRL my eye over-exposes what I see to prioritise the road etc.

But then for track cameras (replay), you want vignetting, depth of field, blurring, limited dynamic range tone mapping, as they are what happens in real life, and gives these 'realistic' looking images. Ie, we process the scene like a camera might do.


Gone are the days of balancing things off. It worries me that they say changing shaders or content is hard. Content in a realistic graphics engine is either wrong or right.

I'm a little confused why artists would be angry to see shaders change at this point. If they were right to start with and the artists have done their job right, then tweaking shaders should only err towards more quality/realism.

They are just making it sound more complicated than it is so we all think they are even bigger heroes hehe.

Dave

 

[XN-Sigma]

So I was bored earlier and it occurred to me that both AC and pCARS have the same car(Zonda R) and same track(Monza), so I thought "ehh let's make a comparison" and I took a few screens on pCARS to compare it with some of the Zonda R screens from AC.

I tried to take the screens as close as possible to the ones I chose from AC, there are some differences in FOV and position but they are mostly on the same place, I also tried to put the weather and time of day as close to the AC screens as possible, and finally I put all graphics settings on max, except for shadows, it really wouldn't make that much difference except making the game run at 3fps.

Here are they:

On the pCARS pics you can see a number on the top right side of the pics, it's my framerate, I was getting around 15~30fps with the graphics on max except for the shadows, I think I left them on high, on ultra it would be much slower.
Now comparing both, in this exact setting, I think AC looks more natural. Though pCARS can look better than in those screens depending on various settings such as weather and time of day, but the same can be said of AC too once weather and time of day are fully implemented.
I'm wondering about one thing though, pCARS is obviously a very graphically heavy game, and I remember someone from Kunos saying something along the lines of AC being lighter than pCARS, what I'm wondering is how light it is, I remember also some comment about AC running fine on an old pentium with an HD7970 I believe.

As a matter of information, I have a Phenom II X4 965 B.E. 3.4ghz and an HD6870, I'm quite curious to know what kind of performance I'd get from AC.