What's the graphical difference?

[xnorb]

I'm really wondering: What's actually making GSCE look different than AC?

Ya, the HUD is very obvious, but the only thing i can pinpoint is the rather dated texturework in GSCE.
Trackside objects and people are of obviously not the cherry on top, but i don't rate them as high as i barely have a look at them.

Could it be that AC uses a higher contrast that adds more depth?

As usual every game has it's own color tint - some use cooler colors, others warmer colors, but that's nothing that's really a gamebreaker.

So, does it really all boil down to higher res textures / less tiled-until-end-of-days-textures and a little bit higher contrast? Or am i missing something really major here?

 

[xnorb]

It's not about the "what" it's about "Why does GSCE look different to AC"

 

[MoodyB]

HDR lighting, post processing & shaders.

Turn off hdr & the pp effects in AC and it doesn't look that much better than GSC.

Same with rF2 as well.

Then it's the little things like self shadowing in the cockpit view, denser 3d grass on some tracks, and generally overall better shadows.

Most of them are the advantages of having a newer gfx engine.

 

[xnorb]

Hmmm, i don't use HDR and post processing in AC, maybe that's why i don't see that much of a difference except pretty much what you said?

 

[Msportdan]

and there you go,,,,,.....

 

[RGerke]

Without HDR, Sweetfx, and PP Filters AC looks the same how like rFactor 1,5 ;-)

 

[s2173]

What are you talking about? I never noticed HDR and PP fiters making Assetto Corsa look any better... just different, if I look them side by side. That's why I don't use them, they don't seem to add anything.The only obvious thing better in AC over SCE is the shading...

 

[P*Funk]

Without PP I actually think that AC can look very dreary and dark a lot of the time. Mugello, especially in the morning, is depressing and it looks like the world is in a gray haze, like there's a film of dirty dishwater over a camera lens.

 

[tpw]

Hmm, there's hints of some slightly weird logic at work here:

GSC is graphically on par with AC because if the more modern engine's gfx are dialled down the 2 titles look similar...

GSC is on graphically on par with AC because have a look at these image processed GSC screen shots...

Pretty much everyone agrees that Reiza have worked magic with a somewhat outdated gfx engine to produce a beautiful vibrant looking and great performing game. But to say it's graphically on par with the latest generation of titles by downplaying their improved shaders, lighting, shadowing, post processing, textures, animations and level of detail is really stretching things a bit.

 

[xnorb]

But to say it's graphically on par with the latest generation of titles by downplaying their improved shaders, lighting, shadowing, post processing, textures, animations and level of detail is really stretching things a bit.

Well, let's look at the PP settings:
Glare - aehm, ok, i usually always disable that in any game.
DoF - great for camera angles, really bad for driver's view, so disable.
Motion Blur - First setting to disable in any game anyways.
Crespscular rays - well, nice detail, but doesn't improve graphics
Heat shimmering effects - guess those add quite some authenticity and help covering up the tiling of textures, so that's a real graphical improvement.

And that's pretty much it.
HDR?
Well ... pump up the saturation and contrast a ton and there we go.
I found none of the HDR sets to be appealing to me.


So it's not like we're talking about turning all graphic details in AC to low or disable everything and compare that to everything on max in GSCE.

If somebody could bring up visual explanations of what they mean by shaders are the big difference, i'd be really interested in that.

 

[tpw]

xnorb, I'm not trying to argue with you mate, I'm just not sure about what replies you were expecting in this thread. You've pretty much answered your own questions as to the differences between the titles, whilst at the same time saying that they are of no real consequence to you. Do you enjoy either or both titles? That's really all that matters. Unfortunately discussion on the differences between sims often seems to devolve into circular arguments between people extolling the virtues of one title and downplaying the virtues of others. Hopefully someone better qualified than me can enlighten you on the shader differences between SCE and other games.

 

[xnorb]

It all has it's roots in the campaign goal saying that they will improve the graphics.
That made me start to question what actually makes the difference.

Because to me there are 2 genres that always managed to have stunning graphics and those are racing games/sims and space games. I still think that Race07 and GSCE look pretty good.
The cockpits look a bit flat (and here's where the in-car shadows come into play) and the textures are obviously not on today's standards, but beside that...

Start a practice session in GSCE, set timelapse to maximum and enjoy the transitions.
Beautiful! What more can we ask?

But of course, there's always room for improvement, and i'm that nerdy curious guy who wants to peak behind the curtain and figure out how things work and why X looks bettter than Y or why A performs better than B

 

[tpw]

I hear you xnorb!

It's truly astonishing how far computer gfx have come in the last decade. The problem now is the "uncanny valley" effect: the harder the devs work and the closer the audiovisuals (and feedback in driving sims) approach realism, the more glaring and immersion breaking are those aspects which are not. For instance it's awesome driving a beautifully modelled car round a well lit/shaded/detailed track, but driving past cardboard cutout people into a pit full of invisible crew can pull you out of the immersion (regardless of whether I should or shouldn't be paying attention to them).

Personally, I want a "frankensim" with rF2's physics/feel/configurability/AI, AC's car detail and UI, pCARS' and Dirt Rally's track detail/animation/audiovisual immersion, and GSC's cohesive and eclectic (and most of all fun) mix of cars and tracks and offline racing. As it stands now I just play and enjoy all of them for their strengths.

 

[Jonathan Menéndez]

The main difference is on the shaders.
My 7 year old nephew plays Minecraft, and I can't think of a better example.
Minecraft before and after update with shaders:

Source:http://www.minecraftforum.net/forum...80299-sonic-ethers-unbelievable-shaders-v10-1

A few shaders and the most blocky game looks great.
And the DX version can make difference, different versions have distinct shader features.
To learn more, search about textures, shaders and materials.

 

[tpw]

Wow, that's incredible! Basically with the right shaders I could make a text based adventure look like skyrim

 

[Will Mazeo]

@Jonathan Menéndez

 

[Jonathan Menéndez]

Impressive, right?
But I've never showed that mod to my nephew, my brother's Pc may explode.

 

[xnorb]

Watching the DX9 / DX11 comparison in Unigine, the only really big difference is tesselation?

 

[tpw]

The bump mapping seems a lot better in DX11, cobblestones and brick walls for instance. On the other hand the performance is better in DX9

 

[xnorb]

That's tesselation.
Bump Mapping 2.0 if you wish

 

[tpw]

Shows what I know doesn't it?!