selnor said:
Reasonable said:
Like I said, Selnor, let's agree to disagree.
I believe that for a racing game a higher res, better AA on the cars, better lighting and particle effects and transparency with more cars and simplified off track objects is a better rendering engine.
You believe a lower resolution, more jaggies on the cars, less cars, better off track objects, better motion blur, more detailed sky and less realistic lighting is a better rendering engine for a racing game.
We both seem to think it's a really good game, so no sweat.
|
I agree with this. Both devs seem to give different parts of the engine priority. We cant forget though that alot of 360 resource is taken up by the most important part the physics. It updates at 360 hertz while GT5P is at 120hertz. If FM3 was at 120 hertz I'm sure it would be 1080p 4xaa as well. Because we already know that FM3 is doing ALL the graphics on just the GPU with no help from CPU. Turn 10 explained that the CPU is doing all of the physics etc and the GPU is doing all the graphics. To me thats a better tech achievement. When you play it you can feel it. The elevations are so prominent, every bump is felt and affects how you drive unlike any other sim racer. It's a hard game to learn well.
|
I think we deserve a cookie for having a civilized discussion!
And if I knew how to insert images I'd give us one... but I don't, so you'll have to imagine it.
