We won't discuss the physics (reason being, there's nothing to discuss), but visually ... especially the 2nd half of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/v/zIuZRANWmbo
And wait: it's a bloody PS4 !! Right, a PS4, with a GPU roughly equivalent to an AMD 7870 ...
P.S.
Thx Juju for the video.
Holy star field Batman! :P
All in GLORIOUS 30fps! ::)
Very pretty is all I can really say about that.... Though the rain/snowdrops drops(Starfield) leave a lot to be desired, and as if those rain drops would just sit there on the screen at that speed! Haha
If your a Milestone arcadey type fanboy it'll make your day I guess? :P
I don't think that will worry Piboso at all. 8)
Hawk.
Quote from: PiBoSo on December 05, 2015, 02:43:57 PM
Holy star field Batman! :P
All in GLORIOUS 30fps! ::)
I personnaly prefer a beautiful 30fps game compared to an ugly 60fps game.
Anyway, no worries about GPB, it's not in the same racing games category.
perhaps I think graphic level is goal as piboso games...(?)
I want both physics and graphics. I am greedy.
Quote from: Napalm Nick on December 05, 2015, 06:28:28 PM
I want both physics and graphics. I am greedy.
Same here ;D
I see my comment got deleted in good ol` piboso fashion ;D
Quote from: PiBoSo on December 05, 2015, 02:43:57 PM
Holy star field Batman! :P
All in GLORIOUS 30fps! ::)
Point is mooth, sorry. Do we have the possibility to have the same visaul quality (even at 30fps) in GPb ? No.
So who knows, maybe at that level of visual quality GPB could do 90fps (*) or maybe it could do only 10. I'd go for 10 though: GPB on a 2500K @ 4,4GHz + 7950 (so way better than a PS4) does 80 something fps at some places on Victoria. And honestly, visually it's 5 to 10 years behind.
Most of the people here (maybe apart Jamoz, but he's not really here, is he ?) will not even bother trying that game, that's already clear. But the point stays: a cheapo PS4 does better (visually) than GPB on a PC worth 3 times the price. And not marginally better, more like "in another freakin' league" better.
And I say all this knowing that graphics/visuals have never been in my top 2 priorities for GBP (which are physics and online ...).
P.S.
Yes, the starfield snow sucks.
Rain drops are bad in DriveClub ? Have you seen the raindrops in GPB ?!
EDIT: I wrote "I'd go for 120", obvious lapsus. It was "I'd gor for 10"
Quote from: PiBoSo on December 05, 2015, 02:43:57 PM
Holy star field Batman! :P
All in GLORIOUS 30fps! ::)
GraphicsGP Bikes: 6
DriveClub: 9
Physics GP Bikes: 8
DriveClub: 0
GP Bikes wins, but some graphic effect, I hope that version 1.0 will be implemented, obviously with the highest priority to the Physics!
Quote from: HornetMax
Most of the people here (maybe apart Jamoz, but he's not really here, is he ?)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/77JBBB0wIiFMc/giphy.gif)
Quote from: HornetMaX on December 05, 2015, 08:03:06 PM
Quote from: PiBoSo on December 05, 2015, 02:43:57 PM
Holy star field Batman! :P
All in GLORIOUS 30fps! ::)
Point is mooth, sorry. Do we have the possibility to have the same visaul quality (even at 30fps) in GPb ? No.
So who knows, maybe at that level of visual quality GPB could do 90fps (*) or maybe it could do only 10. I'd go for 120 though: GPB on a 2500K @ 4,4GHz + 7950 (so way better than a PS4) does 80 something fps at some places on Victoria. And honestly, visually it's 5 to 10 years behind.
Most of the people here (maybe apart Jamoz, but he's not really here, is he ?) will not even bother trying that game, that's already clear. But the point stays: a cheapo PS4 does better (visually) than GPB on a PC worth 3 times the price. And not marginally better, more like "in another freakin' league" better.
And I say all this knowing that graphics/visuals have never been in my top 2 priorities for GBP (which are physics and online ...).
P.S.
Yes, the starfield snow sucks.
Rain drops are bad in DriveClub ? Have you seen the raindrops in GPB ?!
I would say in GPB defence on the graphics eye-candy subject, that GPB is still
heavily in it's development process. Can Ride or the Drive Club say the same?
If Piboso could give us a fully working FBX-2-GPB exporter(enabling all the FBX export abilities that GPB is capable of), plus add a particle system and a well tuned HDR lighting system into GPB, then I'm sure that would go a long way to help others provide the sort of graphics we are seeing from these recent bike games.
But all depends on how efficient the GPB graphics engine is? I'm sure Piboso could eventually improve frame rates when GPB is at a viable stage in development to warrant doing so?
But I for one would love to see GPB with at least the same graphics capabilities as those games.... In fact I would go one better and implement the capability of real-time day/night weather too taken from data acquired from the internet like XPlane 10 does. That would be great for race events. ;D 8)
Graphics:GP Bikes: 5
Ride Club: 8
Physics:GP Bikes: 8
Ride Club: 0
@Piboso: Any chance of letting us into your vision of future graphic abilities and implementations for GPB V1.0? :)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on December 05, 2015, 09:08:18 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on December 05, 2015, 08:03:06 PM
Quote from: PiBoSo on December 05, 2015, 02:43:57 PM
Holy star field Batman! :P
All in GLORIOUS 30fps! ::)
Point is mooth, sorry. Do we have the possibility to have the same visaul quality (even at 30fps) in GPb ? No.
So who knows, maybe at that level of visual quality GPB could do 90fps (*) or maybe it could do only 10. I'd go for 120 though: GPB on a 2500K @ 4,4GHz + 7950 (so way better than a PS4) does 80 something fps at some places on Victoria. And honestly, visually it's 5 to 10 years behind.
Most of the people here (maybe apart Jamoz, but he's not really here, is he ?) will not even bother trying that game, that's already clear. But the point stays: a cheapo PS4 does better (visually) than GPB on a PC worth 3 times the price. And not marginally better, more like "in another freakin' league" better.
And I say all this knowing that graphics/visuals have never been in my top 2 priorities for GBP (which are physics and online ...).
P.S.
Yes, the starfield snow sucks.
Rain drops are bad in DriveClub ? Have you seen the raindrops in GPB ?!
I would say in GPB defence on the graphics eye-candy subject, that GPB is still heavily in it's development process. Can Ride or the Drive Club say the same?
If Piboso could give us a fully working FBX-2-GPB exporter(enabling all the FBX export abilities that GPB is capable of), plus add a particle system and a well tuned HDR lighting system into GPB, then I'm sure that would go a long way to help others provide the sort of graphics we are seeing from these recent bike games.
But all depends on how efficient the GPB graphics engine is? I'm sure Piboso could eventually improve frame rates when GPB is at a viable stage in development to warrant doing so?
But I for one would love to see GPB with at least the same graphics capabilities as those games.... In fact I would go one better and implement the capability of real-time day/night weather too taken from data acquired from the internet like XPlane 10 does. That would be great for race events. ;D 8)
Graphics:
GP Bikes: 5
Ride Club: 8
Physics:
GP Bikes: 8
Ride Club: 0
@Piboso: Any chance of letting us into your vision of future graphic abilities and implementations for GPB V1.0? :)
Hawk.
Graphics: GP Bikes 5.......but Ride Club 8 ?? ?? ...Waaaw .....you know that 99.9% of all "pc master race" is drooling over this..... it's going to be a while before someone comes in to compete with Driveclub's weather effects......yes its arcade and bad physics but try to find better graphics weather effects....i'm waiting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ZcR3Fwnc8 ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrcxmQ8QDX0
The graphics look driveclub are great but the main thing i would like to see in GPB are decent shadows for all object and proper lighting effects.
Anyway its nothing without the sensation of speed and a bike that is rewarding to ride. The one in the vid looks to be 'working' at half the speed the scenery is passing by at - not realistic and i think my interest would be quickly lost - do love the eye candy though ;)
Quote from: Abigor on December 06, 2015, 12:55:26 AM
Quote from: Hawk on December 05, 2015, 09:08:18 PM
I would say in GPB defence on the graphics eye-candy subject, that GPB is still heavily in it's development process. Can Ride or the Drive Club say the same?
If Piboso could give us a fully working FBX-2-GPB exporter(enabling all the FBX export abilities that GPB is capable of), plus add a particle system and a well tuned HDR lighting system into GPB, then I'm sure that would go a long way to help others provide the sort of graphics we are seeing from these recent bike games.
But all depends on how efficient the GPB graphics engine is? I'm sure Piboso could eventually improve frame rates when GPB is at a viable stage in development to warrant doing so?
But I for one would love to see GPB with at least the same graphics capabilities as those games.... In fact I would go one better and implement the capability of real-time day/night weather too taken from data acquired from the internet like XPlane 10 does. That would be great for race events. ;D 8)
Graphics:
GP Bikes: 5
Ride Club: 8
Physics:
GP Bikes: 8
Ride Club: 0
@Piboso: Any chance of letting us into your vision of future graphic abilities and implementations for GPB V1.0? :)
Hawk.
Graphics: GP Bikes 5.......but Ride Club 8 ?? ?? ...Waaaw .....you know that 99.9% of all "pc master race" is drooling over this..... it's going to be a while before someone comes in to compete with Driveclub's weather effects......yes its arcade and bad physics but try to find better graphics weather effects....i'm waiting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ZcR3Fwnc8 ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrcxmQ8QDX0
Well a "10" for graphics would be perfection(cannot tell difference between real life and game graphics), Drive Club Graphics, though very good, are not a "10" standard in my book. :P
But as seems to be the case with 90% of gamers these days.... Give them very good graphics and they drool over your product. Lol
Like I've been reading from some wise people..... These sort of games are great to play at first but they have no substance and therefore get chucked in the cupboard hardly ever to be played again.
GP Bikes may not have the eye-candy as yet, but it has bucket-loads of substance... It's the only bike sim I have continually wanted to use since the day I bought it.... Let's see if you feel the same about Drive Club in 6 months time. ;)
Hawk.
Weirdly the things that impressed me the most were the glazing of the front screen and the fluid moving around in the brake expansion chamber - i think i must be weird :)
Quote from: Hawk on December 06, 2015, 10:01:56 AM
Quote from: Abigor on December 06, 2015, 12:55:26 AM
Quote from: Hawk on December 05, 2015, 09:08:18 PM
I would say in GPB defence on the graphics eye-candy subject, that GPB is still heavily in it's development process. Can Ride or the Drive Club say the same?
If Piboso could give us a fully working FBX-2-GPB exporter(enabling all the FBX export abilities that GPB is capable of), plus add a particle system and a well tuned HDR lighting system into GPB, then I'm sure that would go a long way to help others provide the sort of graphics we are seeing from these recent bike games.
But all depends on how efficient the GPB graphics engine is? I'm sure Piboso could eventually improve frame rates when GPB is at a viable stage in development to warrant doing so?
But I for one would love to see GPB with at least the same graphics capabilities as those games.... In fact I would go one better and implement the capability of real-time day/night weather too taken from data acquired from the internet like XPlane 10 does. That would be great for race events. ;D 8)
Graphics:
GP Bikes: 5
Ride Club: 8
Physics:
GP Bikes: 8
Ride Club: 0
@Piboso: Any chance of letting us into your vision of future graphic abilities and implementations for GPB V1.0? :)
Hawk.
Graphics: GP Bikes 5.......but Ride Club 8 ?? ?? ...Waaaw .....you know that 99.9% of all "pc master race" is drooling over this..... it's going to be a while before someone comes in to compete with Driveclub's weather effects......yes its arcade and bad physics but try to find better graphics weather effects....i'm waiting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ZcR3Fwnc8 ...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrcxmQ8QDX0
Well a "10" for graphics would be perfection(cannot tell difference between real life and game graphics), Drive Club Graphics, though very good, are not a "10" standard in my book. :P
But as seems to be the case with 90% of gamers these days.... Give them very good graphics and they drool over your product. Lol
Like I've been reading from some wise people..... These sort of games are great to play at first but they have no substance and therefore get chucked in the cupboard hardly ever to be played again.
GP Bikes may not have the eye-candy as yet, but it has bucket-loads of substance... It's the only bike sim I have continually wanted to use since the day I bought it.... Let's see if you feel the same about Drive Club in 6 months time. ;)
Hawk.
Hahah i dont play this game and i know its bad..... i just like the graphics......in a perfect world for me will be GP BIKES or Assetto Corsa with this graphics ..... but hey.... you can always dream ;)
You're all missing the point guys ...
Quote from: HornetMaX on December 05, 2015, 01:51:06 PM
We won't discuss the physics (reason being, there's nothing to discuss)
So yeah, it's kinda useless to say that "I don't like because it physics sucks". We all know this, from the start.
The point is that a bloody console can have this level of visuals today (OK, at 30fps, agreed).
And if graphics = 10 is reality-like level, saying that GPB is 5 means that level 1 is what ? Ascii art ?!
Quote from: HornetMaX on December 06, 2015, 11:45:55 AM
You're all missing the point guys ...
Quote from: HornetMaX on December 05, 2015, 01:51:06 PM
We won't discuss the physics (reason being, there's nothing to discuss)
So yeah, it's kinda useless to say that "I don't like because it physics sucks". We all know this, from the start.
The point is that a bloody console can have this level of visuals today (OK, at 30fps, agreed).
And if graphics = 10 is reality-like level, saying that GPB is 5 means that level 1 is what ? Ascii art ?!
Constructively;
Shadows - real deal breaker with the current engine, when the bike is casting a shadow across the track and the scenery is not - reality killer
Lighting - GPB looks very flat, and distance does not portray well. The prototype HDR looks promising but needs developing and ties in with shadows, you never really get the feeling of passing track side objects or movement relative to the sun position.
Models - the trees especially - flat 1D plane trees are especially bad in certain places. 2 plane trees are better but still very year 2000. Buildings and track sidings need better surface texturing and tend to look very flat, windows should be reflective.
Obvious 3D plane surfaces - some smoothing or more modern texturing technique to remove the obvious straight edges from embankments, hills and fields.
If some of these issues were addressed on for example Victoria, especially the view around the pit area initial wow factor would be much higher. At the moment its like an early 2000's flight simulator not the best first impression of a demo.
I do not think any of these are big issues with modern graphics hardware and would lift the visuals considerably but it probably need good track design tools to achieve a consistent finished product.
I hate the snow/rain effect in the demo, snow and rain falls (gravity anyone) in the distance and then feels like it comes towards you. This is just a horrible star field effect (win3.1 screensaver) and quite vomit inducing.
Quote from: HornetMaX on December 06, 2015, 11:45:55 AM
You're all missing the point guys ...
Quote from: HornetMaX on December 05, 2015, 01:51:06 PM
We won't discuss the physics (reason being, there's nothing to discuss)
So yeah, it's kinda useless to say that "I don't like because it physics sucks". We all know this, from the start.
The point is that a bloody console can have this level of visuals today (OK, at 30fps, agreed).
And if graphics = 10 is reality-like level, saying that GPB is 5 means that level 1 is what ? Ascii art ?!
Personally Max, I'd say a graphics level of "1" is the same standard as the old "Sinclair Spectrum" or "Mine Craft" graphics. Basically in my opinion a "1" is equivalent to block-art graphics. So saying GPB is a level "5" would be about right. ;)
But the graphics for GPB is something that can be greatly improved at a later stage once the main issues have been solved, like the netcode(core.exe) issue I would've thought; so trying to compare GPB with the Ride Club or any other game/sim that is fully developed is quite pointless at this stage.
But it would be good if Piboso could let us into his vision and his plans for the graphics quality for the fully developed GPB V1.0. I think if his vision is for similar graphic standards or even better than the Ride Club then it would really make for a very exciting future indeed for GP Bikes..... Bucket loads of substance together with all that eye-candy would blow all other bike games and sims out of the water for many many years to come! ;D 8)
Hawk.
PS: I think the graphics capabilities in GPB are better than what we actually see. I think the big problem with exploring GPB graphics capabilities is because you cannot export the work you can do in a 3D app directly into GPB. At this time all you can to is export the model, the collision mesh, texture map and shadow maps.
This came up before and PB listed a lot of extra graphical capabilities that the engine supports - just no guidance of how to implement them :(
Quote from: h106frp on December 06, 2015, 03:16:52 PM
This came up before and PB listed a lot of extra graphical capabilities that the engine supports - just no guidance of how to implement them :(
Yes there is guidance on how to implement the shaders, normal and spec maps, etc here: http://docs.piboso.com/wiki/index.php/ (http://docs.piboso.com/wiki/index.php/) .
But we shouldn't have to create additional text file script code to add these graphical features; they should be exported with the exporter(preferably from an FBX source file). This is what I'm waiting for before I'll really go to town on any track scene. :P :)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on December 06, 2015, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: h106frp on December 06, 2015, 03:16:52 PM
This came up before and PB listed a lot of extra graphical capabilities that the engine supports - just no guidance of how to implement them :(
Yes there is guidance on how to implement the shaders, normal and spec maps, etc here: http://docs.piboso.com/wiki/index.php/ (http://docs.piboso.com/wiki/index.php/) .
But we shouldn't have to create additional text file script code to add these graphical features; they should be exported with the exporter(preferably from an FBX source file). This is what I'm waiting for before I'll really go to town on any track scene. :P :)
Do i understand correctly ? - we could have animated flags blowing in the wind and animated spectators
Hawk.
Quote from: h106frp on December 06, 2015, 06:23:04 PM
Quote from: Hawk on December 06, 2015, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: h106frp on December 06, 2015, 03:16:52 PM
This came up before and PB listed a lot of extra graphical capabilities that the engine supports - just no guidance of how to implement them :(
Yes there is guidance on how to implement the shaders, normal and spec maps, etc here: http://docs.piboso.com/wiki/index.php/ (http://docs.piboso.com/wiki/index.php/) .
But we shouldn't have to create additional text file script code to add these graphical features; they should be exported with the exporter(preferably from an FBX source file). This is what I'm waiting for before I'll really go to town on any track scene. :P :)
Hawk.
Do i understand correctly ? - we could have animated flags blowing in the wind and animated spectators
By the look of it I guess you could do that with the animated texture function. But not tried it myself as yet so I couldn't say for sure, but it looks do-able. ;)
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on December 06, 2015, 06:43:55 PM
Quote from: h106frp on December 06, 2015, 06:23:04 PM
Quote from: Hawk on December 06, 2015, 03:38:37 PM
Quote from: h106frp on December 06, 2015, 03:16:52 PM
This came up before and PB listed a lot of extra graphical capabilities that the engine supports - just no guidance of how to implement them :(
Yes there is guidance on how to implement the shaders, normal and spec maps, etc here: http://docs.piboso.com/wiki/index.php/ (http://docs.piboso.com/wiki/index.php/) .
But we shouldn't have to create additional text file script code to add these graphical features; they should be exported with the exporter(preferably from an FBX source file). This is what I'm waiting for before I'll really go to town on any track scene. :P :)
Hawk.
Do i understand correctly ? - we could have animated flags blowing in the wind and animated spectators
By the look of it I guess you could do that with the animated texture function. But not tried it myself as yet so I couldn't say for sure, but it looks do-able. ;)
Hawk.
If you could just try it with flags that would be great - they always look daft never moving around
I'll see if I can put a flying flag in at Castle Combe after New Year. ;)
Hawk.
Driveclub bikes looks great graphicly.. its not sold as a simulation title, just a fun game :)
For GPB, personally im happy with the graphics but wouldn't say no to improvements.. always nice if it adds to immersion.. (Project cars visuals for GPB would be amazing though lol 8)) if the physics/handling keeps improving then all good with me as it is.. ;)
I still like to play other bike games from time to time anyway.. why not? :P
Dorna blocked this video so it must be realistic hahaha ;D
https://www.youtube.com/v/0LUa8IG0Voo
The graphics of GP Bikes is good indeed, most people believe that to have a good graphics it is necessary have billions of polygons ... but with a good dynamic lighting half of the work is done.
And with a blur effect (realistic not arcade-style) to high speeds, no one would see the trees in 2 plans ... (hide is the secret ;D )