| ethomaz said: If the thread was about graphics only... |
Then why even bother posting videos?, and go in to detail on why you think GT6 looks better than pc version of cars?
Please save me the excuse of topology, having hills and notable bumps where they should be is by no means approximate, you can say "lazer scanned track" and roll out numbers all day of why a virtual track is close to the real thing but the reality of it is in final production the geometry for the track is shaved down as much as possible to reduce complexity, both to save resources and to prevent it impacting performance, this process removes much of that topological data and smooths out the bumps to a point where youre like "wow they have the same hill!, the same dip too!" but beyond that they rarely match up to the real thing.
that said, this process is labor and cost intensive, it involves renting out a track for a considerable duration while measurements are taken and even when youve pulled said data, you cant just freely use that in a game without seeking and paying for licenesing to use the tracks name.
Someone earlier talked about licensing in relation to the actual topology, well thats just bullshit sorry to say, the licensing is simply for using the name and likeness of a track, and would need to be paid regardless of how accurate your final game track is.
The biggest, and most obvious issue here is that track tolopogy changes, resurfacing sections or simply from frequent use, bumps flatten, dips are born, curvature increases or decreases, ground movement or weather effects elevation, solidity and surface tracktion, none of this data is accounted for in any game, no matter what it looks like or how much money has gone in to it.
to sell me again how topology based on a significantly optimized (smoothed out) then tweaked mesh, is notably better than just building the same course with estimated topology?
