GT4 real pics

And still fake shadows? Jeepers.

Originally posted by V|PeR
Umm did you forget what the creator said when GT3 came out?  He said it only used 50% of the PS2\'s power.... dont remember if it was 50 or 75 but ya it can get that much better!

Then why did they decide to use 75% and not something like 90%
and blow us out of the water? Time restraints? Meh, as long as this is true and they take advantage of the power they didnt use first time round then ill be happy.

Lord - Thats why 1st gen games don\'t look as good as 4th gen games. Its simply about learning the hardware, creating your own tricks and special effects, and mostly trial and error.

For GT3, they did what they could at that time, but for GT4 they have had over 2 years of tweak and learning time.

Its like comparing Ridge Racer PS1 with Ridge Racer 4 PS1.

See the difference?

Originally posted by Lord Nicon


I dont doubt that ps2 can do graphics similar to this, but you make it sound like it stomps over the competition technically which is not true.  (you\'re right about one thing though. ps2 cant be beaten)

No but architecturally(if there is such a word:) ) it does.

Time for a few corrections before someone orgasms because of slightly uncorrect assumptions:


Metal_Gear_Ray:

Both xbox and Gamecube have not had a racer this good looking, both are technically superior in nearly every possible way. I seriously doubt ps2 could do anything like shown in those screenshots, even gf4 doesnt do that.

As someone already pointed out, neither does Xbox or Gamecube have a racer that is "superiour" looking to Gran Turismo 3, a first generation game. I\'d even argue no game beats the GT3 wetcourse at night - that\'s subjective though and I am also sure there are games that are technically more sophisticated than the 2 year old GT3.

Kituka:

The PS2\'s Emotion Engine is much stronger than similar chips found in either the Xbox or the GC, so who know\'s what is possible? PS2 can stream infinite textures when approached correctly (thinking in PS2 terms, not usual programming).

No console has infinite amount of resources. PS2\'s texturing limitation is somewhere between the available memory of 32MB and the 1.2 GB/s bus.

Lord Nicon:

As much as i would like this (technically speaking) i dont think this is correct. If the ps2 could stream infinite textures trust me, this would have somehow been tapped into already. And yes im some respects the EE is better than other chips beause it is a dedicated 128 bit chip. As we all know, the ps2 has its fair share of problems. I dont doubt that ps2 can do graphics similar to this, but you make it sound like it stomps over the competition technically which is not true. (you\'re right about one thing though. ps2 cant be beaten)

In some ways better yes, but not because of the 128bit difference. The EE/GS is a totally different approach than the PC similar architectures that both GameCube or Xbox use. I\'d say PS2 is about good enough to stay competitive in terms of performance.

V|PeR:

Umm did you forget what the creator said when GT3 came out? He said it only used 50% of the PS2\'s power.... dont remember if it was 50 or 75 but ya it can get that much better

I believe Yamauchi never stated any numbers. I believe you\'re refering to the PA2 data that stated 25%.

Hawke:

And still fake shadows? Jeepers.

I hope you weren\'t expecting SH3 type shadows. If so, you might have to wait for PS3, as none of the current consoles have the necessary resources to fullfill such feats.

Lord Nicon:

Then why did they decide to use 75% and not something like 90%

Because the number takes efficiancy into account, not the actual processor usage. In a simplified example, I could tap out the Emotion Engine at 100% doing a complicated mathematical equation using a total of 3 steps. Most likely though, in given time, you\'ll find a way to simplify your routine using only 2 steps to get the same result using less resources. If the new approach does it in 2/3rd of the time, it means that the old approach was to 67% efficiant compared to the newer appraoch (100%). The Performance Analyzer basically messures the tapped performances efficiancy and what is theoretical possible of achieving (100%). In other words, GT3 used a total of 25% of the resources available - it does not mean however that the team will just magically improve by 75%. An improvement will be there, but how much is up to the talent of the developers engineering skills and the artwork put in to make it actually look appealing.

Unicron!

No but architecturally(if there is such a word ) it does.

Heh, to you and me it does - however, you might get killed for saying this out loud by certain people who swear the x86 is the best thing since sliced bread...

Originally posted by seven
Heh, to you and me it does - however, you might get killed for saying this out loud by certain people who swear the x86 is the best thing since sliced bread... [/B]

hmmm.......sliced bread! :facelick:

I hope you weren\'t expecting SH3 type shadows. If so, you might have to wait for PS3, as none of the current consoles have the necessary resources to fullfill such feats.

I was just expecting for a bit of a facelift after GT3... and by god if there\'s something to break the illusion of real racing, it\'s the shadows! And, er, 2D trees. But the shadows would surely be more easily implemented. Just decent shadows under the cars, that\'s all I\'m saying. With PS3, I\'d be expecting to see the shadows from the chassis to dance over the driver\'s helmet who\'s sitting inside, intricate self-shadowing, and being able to see flies splatter onto the front grill and stuff like that...