Codemasters' F1 game discussion

Yeah PS3 first!

Daniel Knott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Racing games actually require a hell of a lot less
> processing and graphical power compared to fast
> paced fps or 3rd person action games. Racing games
> have a lot less going on (and most of the time
> there are a lot fewer than 22 cars on screen) -
> even if there are 22, that is no real problem,
> especially with lods. There is significantly less
> to process. Why do you think that gt4 had such
> nice graphics for a ps2 game? And even more so in
> photo mode.
> Racing games can be run at a much lower fps than
> fps games and still appear smooth, as the motion
> is very consistent and flowing compared to an fps
> where everything is very hectic and jerks around
> unpredictably a lot.

Sorry mate, but I don't agree with you at all here. You have 22 cars being monitored all the time, just because the cars aren't in view doesn't mean hundreds of calculations per second are going on. Look at Forza 2 for example, each car on track has approx 360 calculations per second being performed on it soley for the handling. Have a grid of 22 cars that's 7920 calculations for handling physics per second. (I read somewhere that each tyre contact point has about 7000 calculations per second somewhere (thought it was in the Forza 2 limited edition book thing, but I can't find any evidence for this now, and it does seem a little impossible!)

Also, the fps does make a difference, hence why it was important for Forza 2 and 3 to run at a solid 60 fps to appear perfectly smooth and real. Don't get me wrong, FPS's can have much going on too, but racing games certainly aren't much easier on the hardware by any means.

__________________________



Help keep our forums tidy.

Use the search function...

Racing games actually require a hell of a lot less processing and graphical power compared to fast paced fps or 3rd person action games. Racing games have a lot less going on (and most of the time there are a lot fewer than 22 cars on screen) - even if there are 22, that is no real problem, especially with lods. There is significantly less to process.

Opposite, actually. Just because something isn't actually on the screen, doesn't remove it from the resources. The screenshots you posted are utterly meaningless because all it is is nice transparency in very low poly settings. In terms of graphics, racing games do take a significant amount of processing power, and in terms of physics they take a monumental amount of processing power compared to a regular game.

Why do you think that gt4 had such nice graphics for a ps2 game?

The worst possible example you could have chosen to prove your point. Quite easy to say why GT4 had great graphics. It was one of the only games to utilise the PS2s second processor. No non-Sony game took advantage of the second CPU.

No doubt you will still deny it though and continue to be pig ignorant.

Sorry for providing facts! Next till I'll just post a bunch of screenshots which I don't really understand, just to have a wank over!

I read somewhere that each tyre contact point has about 7000 calculations per second somewhere

There is a list somewhere of the frequency of most modern sims physics engines.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2009 02:07PM by DaveEllis.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is
> also a tiny fraction of the market compared to the
> 360 and PS3, so it is a financial black hole to
> throw money at it anyway.

Not sure about that, if you look at any sales figures, you will see that the Wii has sold a large amount more than the 360 and PS3, close to or even more than the combined total of the others in some markets.

However, this is largely made up of casual gamers, hence the lack of reliance on graphics in most Wii games. As such, I am not expecting anything more than an arcade game for the Wii/PSP version, which will probably still sell very well.

The important thing for most of us is that, hopefully the version for the PS3/360 reflects that most people are more dedicated gamers, and they produce a decent simulation to suit this audience.

---

X (@ed24f1)

They should just use the Havok engine, everyone seems to be doing so :P

Not sure about that, if you look at any sales figures, you will see that the Wii has sold a large amount more than the 360 and PS3, close to or even more than the combined total of the others in some markets.

However, this is largely made up of casual gamers, hence the lack of reliance on graphics in most Wii games. As such, I am not expecting anything more than an arcade game for the Wii/PSP version, which will probably still sell very well.

You partially hit the nail on the head with the second paragraph. The Wii is a casual gaming console. The games that sell well are along the lines of Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and the Mario games. Casual gamers don't tend to get hung up on graphics, or even game play either (otherwise the Wii would be a massive failure - but it isn't). So throwing cash at the Wii version makes no sense what so ever.

The main market is the PS3 and 360.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

It's very clear to me that codemasters is throwing the PSP and Wii versions out there to make some quick cash. I know many people don't like GRiD, but the graphics were great in that game. I don't expect less than that for the F1 game. As far as simulation goes, we have to wait and see I guess.

Willb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Daniel Knott Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Racing games actually require a hell of a lot
> less
> > processing and graphical power compared to fast
> > paced fps or 3rd person action games. Racing
> games
> > have a lot less going on (and most of the time
> > there are a lot fewer than 22 cars on screen)
> -
> > even if there are 22, that is no real problem,
> > especially with lods. There is significantly
> less
> > to process. Why do you think that gt4 had such
> > nice graphics for a ps2 game? And even more so
> in
> > photo mode.
> > Racing games can be run at a much lower fps
> than
> > fps games and still appear smooth, as the
> motion
> > is very consistent and flowing compared to an
> fps
> > where everything is very hectic and jerks
> around
> > unpredictably a lot.
>
> Sorry mate, but I don't agree with you at all
> here. You have 22 cars being monitored all the
> time, just because the cars aren't in view doesn't
> mean hundreds of calculations per second are going
> on. Look at Forza 2 for example, each car on track
> has approx 360 calculations per second being
> performed on it soley for the handling. Have a
> grid of 22 cars that's 7920 calculations for
> handling physics per second. (I read somewhere
> that each tyre contact point has about 7000
> calculations per second somewhere (thought it was
> in the Forza 2 limited edition book thing, but I
> can't find any evidence for this now, and it does
> seem a little impossible!)
>
> Also, the fps does make a difference, hence why it
> was important for Forza 2 and 3 to run at a solid
> 60 fps to appear perfectly smooth and real. Don't
> get me wrong, FPS's can have much going on too,
> but racing games certainly aren't much easier on
> the hardware by any means.


Now this is where you're being silly - the cars will not have to be rendered, that is where the majority of the hit on resources comes.
There is also the fact that this will be an arcade game and it will certainly not have many calculations at all - this is not forza 2 and is a simplistic arcade game, it is silly to treat it as such.

Also, when off screen (and sometimes even when on screen in really crap games), the actual physics of the ai are either not used (in games where you can only view the player in a replay) or simplified. This requires an even fewer amount of variables to be stored.
In all honesty though, the amount of calculations for the physics even of an advanced game is a tiny strain on resources compared to rendering something.


And dave being as obtuse as ever -

In terms of resources, see above. The screenshots were posted just to show that the wii is capable of something nice looking.

That does not make the gt4 example the worst example at all - you are missing the point. It just shows what the console is capable of and it was a racing game too. For non racing games there are plenty of others, mgs games for a start or would you like me to list every game that looked reasonably good for a ps2 game...



And the thing is, this should not even be being debated.
The hilarious fact is that you feel the wii cannot do better than a psp and that it is not capable of better than this:


That is quite blatantly psp quality and hardly cutting edge psp quality at that.

GP4 even looks better than this game and that is ancient. It's almost worse than gp3 - although at least it has individual car models.

H E L L O

Now this is where you're being silly - the cars will not have to be rendered, that is where the majority of the hit on resources comes.
There is also the fact that this will be an arcade game and it will certainly not have many calculations at all - this is not forza 2 and is a simplistic arcade game, it is silly to treat it as such.

Cars still have to be loaded into the memory. Racing games have a particularly high memory useage, mainly because of the fact it has to store 20 cars and a full circuit. FPS don't have to do that. They either do continual loading (like Grand Theft Auto from San Andreas onwards) or they have stops for loading points (like Half Life 2). Racing games can't take advantage of either of these.

Calling Forza 2 anything more than arcade just because the speeds are somewhat realistic and you can't powerslide around like in DiRT is also silly. Forza 2 is not a sim. The only sim there has ever been on any of the recent consoles (and I say recent from the original Playstation) was Richard Burns Rally. Everything else is just an imposter. And why was that the only one? Because it only has 1 visible car.

In terms of resources, see above. The screenshots were posted just to show that the wii is capable of something nice looking.

Seen them. Same model posted several times doesn't mean it needs loaded into the RAM several times. I also see they are nice and zoomed out. To hide the low poly. All it is is some nicely done textures on some very poor models. I don't find that impressive.

That does not make the gt4 example the worst example at all - you are missing the point. It just shows what the console is capable of and it was a racing game too.

It does make GT4 the worst example possible. The PS2 was only capable of that if you were able to utilise the second CPU. Sony never release an SDK or documentation on how to harness it, which is why non Sony games don't tend to look anywhere near as pretty. Your second example, MGS, is also a SCE product and the development team was privledged to the information. The PS2 was capable of quite a lot, just not to anyone who wasn't working for Sony.

I'm yet to see a Wii game that actually looks impressive. There are 2 ways to make a Wii game look somewhat decent to a casual gamer (ie, one that can't tell the difference between good and half arsed to look good)

- You can put some pretty textures on a bad model to try and hide the comprimises you made to compensate for the poor hardware performance

- You can take the Mario route of having no detail in the models or textures, but make it so cartoony that it doesn't matter. It'll look "good" no matter what that way, since it's impossible to mess up the visuals of a game which requires no detail what-so-ever.

And dave being as obtuse as ever -

Sorry for understanding the very basics of computers, games, and the market they are targeting with the difference console bases. I'll go back to pretending that this was always meant to be a hardcore sim, and the Wii version will be somewhat respectable, despite the target audience for it being equal to those who enjoy using barbed wire coated dildos.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

I said that the wii version is casual at the very start and that they are doing this because they can get away with it.

I never claimed forza to be a sim, but apart from rbr it is the most sim-like console experience. I did not bring up that example, but compared to full on arcade games it is throwing around more data.

You could easily do continual loading in this game - just before a car becomes near enough to the player to be about to enter the visible range then you load it. Same with the track - split the track up into sections and load certain sections as they become needed.

There are gamecube games that look good and respectable. The models in mario are actually rather nice. That you cannot see past the stylistic presentation of the visuals to see that things are curved and detailed. The textures I will admit for the majority are not especially detailed, however that is more a stylistic choice - some are.

It just seems you have not even seen what the gamecube is capable of, which is a lot better than what this codemasters offering appears to be.

And yes they are just doing it cos they can get away with it because of the myth that the wii is completely crap.

Sure, the wii is nowhere near as powerful as the other consoles, but it is by no means as bad as you or the majority of the media make out. This myth helps developers cos they realise they can put out any old rubbish - it being a casual console and it should hopefully still sell.

I don't even have a wii, yet i know it's capable of much more as i have a gamecube and that sure is better graphically than half the crud on the wii.

Again, if you won't believe me, at least read this: [www.games.net]

H E L L O

I see Daniel's point, we had F1 games on the GameCube and there's no excuse for the Wii to have one that would rival a F1 game from the PS1. 7 1/2 years ago F1 2002 came out and it still looks better (and probably will play better) than this F1 2009 on the Wii, that's the bottom line and what Daniel's trying to say I believe.

That's a nice little article too, it's a shame there's too much apparent selfishness/lazyness going around!

If it's going to be as shite as it looks why not make it fun? Such as that NASCAR mario kart game?

Anyone buying this game is not expecting top-line gfx or phyisics, so why bother even attempt to get anything remotley similar? Just got the complete other end and make it appeal to the mario-kart bunch.

The gamecube had some awesome F1 games, and I guess after reading through the Wii does seem capable, just people are too lazy to amke full use its capabilities.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

I like that idea, Chet. Imagine an F1 game for the Wii with Cartoony gfx (like Wacky Racers for DreamCast) with a Mario Kart gameplay (with more focus on braking though :P)! The cars could even be like the ones we see on strips in the F1 forum, big wheels, tight and compact chassis with a big helmet sticking out.

Yeah that'd be awesome. It wouldn't be a sim, not by a long shot, but I'd still play it.

---

Order a giffgaff SIM from my link and get £5 credit, free!
Season 1 and Season 3 GPGSL World Champion!
Member of CTDP - Cars Tracks Development Program - 3D Carshaper

Yeah, that or Officially-Licensed F1 Generally

---

Gee I didn't know Marvin Martian was a F1 Racer!! :-p

love the idea :D

Website | Blog | Twitter | CTDP: Site Blog Twitter

I'd love to an F1 game like mario kart. Gui, those cartoons are perfect for it too!!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Well give it 4 years and you'll see someone stole our idea :P.

Dahie, get CTDP on it ASAP!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2009 04:53PM by Guimengo.