The PC Gaming and Hardware Technobabble Topic

[Regulus]

New GPUs are constantly being developed. But games aren't nearly changing at that same pace.

I blame consoles for that. Most games are multi-plats, so the development of PC versions is generally hindered by the console counterparts. This is why we have so few DX11 games. The Xbox 360 uses DX10, I believe (I may be wrong on that), and the PS3 uses the OpenGL equivalent.

That is the very reason why even the GeForce 8 series can still play today's games. The consoles are built from that technology, and games of today are made to run on that technology.

I don't think high end cards of today will be outdated anytime soon, though, simply because the Xbox One and PS4 will be using variants of those cards.

What's interesting, is that they both look like they'll have octo-core processors. If 8 core CPU's become the norm, this could be very interesting for that market. Most games now hardly even utilize quads, so this could completely change everything.

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"]
I blame consoles for that. Most games are multi-plats, so the development of PC versions is generally hindered by the console counterparts. This is why we have so few DX11 games. The Xbox 360 uses DX10, I believe (I may be wrong on that), and the PS3 uses the OpenGL equivalent.[/quote]

The 360 uses DX 9. Even worse.
[quote="Regulus"]
That is the very reason why even the GeForce 8 series can still play today's games. The consoles are built from that technology, and games of today are made to run on that technology.

I don't think high end cards of today will be outdated anytime soon, though, simply because the Xbox One and PS4 will be using variants of those cards.

What's interesting, is that they both look like they'll have octo-core processors. If 8 core CPU's become the norm, this could be very interesting for that market. Most games now hardly even utilize quads, so this could completely change everything.[/quote]

Do be strict, I play dedicated PC games, which do in fact use all the hardware they can get. For instance, the one "game" that I look at in order to determine if I need a GPU upgrade, X-Plane, requires a DX 11 level card (more specifically, OpenGL 4.2). But I agree about consoles and limitations: it's why you don't see true simulators on them.

And no, not even Gran Turismo/ Forza are true simulators. They are simply the best the consoles could manage.

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"]And no, not even Gran Turismo/ Forza are true simulators. They are simply the best the consoles could manage.[/quote]

I found this today; thought you might find it interesting.

http://www.gtplanet.net/gt6-used-to-tun ... ring-gt-r/

Polyphony Digital actually works with real life car manufacturers and racing teams. For example, the Citroen GT.

For Gran Turismo 6:

[quote]New Physics Engine
• New suspension and kinematics model
• New tyre model
• New aerodynamics model
• Technical partnership with Yokohama Rubber and KW Automotive [/quote]

Polyphony Digital couldn't be trying any harder to make Gran Turismo as realistic as possible. They actually work with real life companies to develop the physics engine.

In contrast, the developers of Forza have one guy with a Ph.D. in physics doing that job.

It's no coincidence that some of the best (and luckiest) GT5 players are actually racing with Kazunori Yamauchi. Yes, the developer of Gran Turismo lets players drive his race car.

[quote]Kazunori Yamauchi, President of Polyphony Digital, explained:
“GT Academy is a fitting platform for the Gran Turismo community to preview GT6 for the first time, as we aim to bring the worlds of virtual and reality closer than ever. We are very proud of this partnership with Nissan, and we have aimed to make a very appealing and accessible competition featuring a range of their cars. The challenges, even at this early stage of the competition, are designed to improve people’s race craft before they even make it to driving real cars. We have also incorporated the Silverstone circuit for the first time in Gran Turismo. This should ensure that competitors will arrive at Race Camp better prepared than ever.”

Winning GT Academy is a passport to a career in global motorsport, with Lucas Ordoñez (2008 winner) and Jann Mardenborough (2011 winner) racing at the 2013 Le Mans 24 Hours for Nissan Nismo. The latest graduates Wolfgang Reip from Belgium (European winner), Mark Shulzhitskiy (Russian winner), Steve Doherty (US winner) and Peter Pyzera (German winner) are currently competing in the Blancpain Endurance Series in a pair of Nissan GT-R Nismo GT3 cars. With the online qualification rounds offering a sneak preview of GT6, and the Nismo athletes blazing a trail in motorsport, the entry levels for this year’s motorsport talent-spotting contest are expected to reach an all time high.

The format of GT Academy sees the fastest PlayStation gamers from each country join winners from a number of live events to compete in their respective National Finals. The action will then make the transition from the virtual world to real Nissan sports cars when the winners of each National competition are invited to take part in the intense international final at Silverstone Circuit, now the established home of the GT Academy Race Camp.

The winners of each of the GT Academy competitions will then be put through an incredibly intensive and thorough Driver Development Programme, rated among the best in the world, in order to qualify for the ultimate competition prize - a full season racing a Nissan GT-R GT3 Nismo in a top-level championship.[/quote]

You can't say it's not a true simulation just because it's not on PC. Gran Turismo is as close as it gets to actually driving on the track.

[DGFone]

All those links are about GT6:

1. It's not out yet. How many games promised one thing, but delivered something else completely?

2. GT6 is going to be for the new generation - aka the "totally not a PC"-soles.

Current gen hardware can't handle true simulation, so if you look at even GT5, you will see compromises and limitations across the board.

For instance, a "requirement" in PC racing sims, one that seems to be lacking in console racers to the point that devs think up of excuses as to why not to have it, is damage simulation. With aircraft it's easy: you crash, you're a goner, so flight sims don't need to have a damage model for ground collisions (which some still have). But with car racing sims, what happened when you accidently brush a wall can have a huge impact, but all GT 5 said was "we are a racing sim and not a crashing sim".

[quote="Regulus"]It's no coincidence that some of the best (and luckiest) GT5 players are actually racing with Kazunori Yamauchi. Yes, the developer of Gran Turismo lets players drive his race car. [/quote]

Here's a tip: only talk about things you actually know. I too thought that true sims can prepare you for the real deal. Here's a tip: THEY DON'T. I know for a fact that flight sims are only good for training people in one aspect for sure: instruments. Not flying. But purely on getting people able to easily read the aircraft instruments.

Expect the same thing with cars: when you sit on a couch at home, you don't feel any of the forces or experience the real thing. When you turn in GT 5, there are no lateral Gs on you. The best GT 5 racer can be some fat slob for all I know, but in order to be a good racing car driver, you need to be more than just slim, you need to be extremely fit. Those race car drivers you mentioned might play GT 5, but they don't race just because they got good at GT 5. They were good racers before that.

And if you think I'm making it up:

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"]All those links are about GT6:

1. It's not out yet. How many games promised one thing, but delivered something else completely?

2. GT6 is going to be for the new generation - aka the "totally not a PC"-soles.

Current gen hardware can't handle true simulation, so if you look at even GT5, you will see compromises and limitations across the board.[/quote]

Here's a tip: listen to your own advice.

[quote]Here's a tip: only talk about things you actually know.[/quote]

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05/24/sony- ... 3-not-ps4/

[quote="DGFone"]I too thought that true sims can prepare you for the real deal. Here's a tip: THEY DON'T. I know for a fact that flight sims are only good for training people in one aspect for sure: instruments. Not flying. But purely on getting people able to easily read the aircraft instruments.

Expect the same thing with cars: when you sit on a couch at home, you don't feel any of the forces or experience the real thing. When you turn in GT 5, there are no lateral Gs on you. The best GT 5 racer can be some fat slob for all I know, but in order to be a good racing car driver, you need to be more than just slim, you need to be extremely fit. Those race car drivers you mentioned might play GT 5, but they don't race just because they got good at GT 5. They were good racers before that.

And if you think I'm making it up:

[/quote]

Did you actually read what I said? I said that Gran Turismo is as close as it gets to actually driving on a race track.

Now, unless there's some way to simulate G-forces without actually moving that quickly, no simulation can be perfect. Or else it wouldn't be a simulation.

Not on PC =/= not true simulation. End of story.

[KingCub]

[quote="DGFone"]

Here's a tip: only talk about things you actually know. I too thought that true sims can prepare you for the real deal. Here's a tip: THEY DON'T. I know for a fact that flight sims are only good for training people in one aspect for sure: instruments. Not flying. But purely on getting people able to easily read the aircraft instruments.[/quote]

Going to have to disagree. I have been a student for about half a year now, and most of my training has been in a simulator. They teach you much more then just instruments. Navigation, engine management, traffic patterns, flight maneuvers, and more. A flight sim is about 95% correct for everything I just listed, I can prove from experience. If you still don't believe me, here is a real P-51 pilot talking about a talk-off in a simulator. He uses real world procedures that he used in the real thing -

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtop ... 94&t=31684

I don't know how accurate racing sim's are, as I rarely play them. But nothing is ever going to be perfect, you just can't simulate real life forces/emotions. We can get pretty darn close thou.

[DGFone]

[quote="KingCub"]Going to have to disagree. I have been a student for about half a year now, and most of my training has been in a simulator. They teach you much more then just instruments. Navigation, engine management, traffic patterns, flight maneuvers, and more. A flight sim is about 95% correct for everything I just listed, I can prove from experience. If you still don't believe me, here is a real P-51 pilot talking about a talk-off in a simulator. He uses real world procedures that he used in the real thing -

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtop ... 94&t=31684

I don't know how accurate racing sim's are, as I rarely play them. But nothing is ever going to be perfect, you just can't simulate real life forces/emotions. We can get pretty darn close thou.[/quote]

You still don't feel the forces in a sim.

The P-51 example: The pilot learned to fly the Mustang before getting on the sim. And from my own experiences as well, after you learn the real deal, a sim can improve many aspects, mainly because you already experienced what it's like in real life and can mentally compensate for what a sim lacks in feeling. A sim definitely helps once you start flying, but not really before. Heck, in the X-Plane forums, new flyers are actively discouraged from practicing using X-Plane for this reason: the sim trains you wrong procedures compared to real life as to how to fly.

[quote="KingCub"]Navigation, engine management, traffic patterns, flight maneuvers, and more[/quote]

You don't have to learn those using a sim. In fact, most people learn these things on the ground, in the "ground school" part of training. The reason why sims are different with instruments is because ground school can show you pictures and videos of the instruments, but in a sim, you turn the plane and see how the instruments react, and that goes a long way compared to even videos. Traffic pattern, engine management, etc... you're better off learning those on the ground.

In the end, it's not really my personal opinion that sims don't teach you the real thing that well. I thought when I started to fly that I would be really good because of my sim experience. Reality proved that while I am still a rather good pilot (first solo performed in a tail-dragger - a feat that only 10% of flyers can do), the only thing that my simulators really helped was IFR and instrument flying.

To put it simply: I can do a roll in a Cessna in a flight sim any day of the week. But when I am actually in a plane, true, I thought of it, but I never even dared to perform any stunt maneuver as even a tight 45 degree turn, which when done right is about 1.5-2 G's, is already harsh enough on your body that you won't exactly do them just for fun.

And don't even get me started on turbulence. In a sim, just like in real life, the plane just shakes about, but basically follows the same course. But in real life, the fact that you're inside of the place as it bounces around makes a huge difference.

Plus I've never seen a fligh sim properly simulate air currents and thermals. When I fly over the windmill farm next to the airport, even on "calm" days, you can easily climb or drop a few hundred feet while flying "straight and level" simply due to the fact that the airplane is flying inside of moving air.

Despite being "flight simulators", there is no flight simulator that I know of that actually simulates air. Even X-Plane only simulates how the air immediately around a plane will cause it to behave (calculating forces and such), but it doesn't simulate air columns or thermals. Sims like FSX doesn't even simulate the forces, instead just having different values for what happens to the planes when they do whatever at any given situation. I'm not going to argue about which is more "realistic" (both are licensed by the FAA), but neither one of them simulate air that it not immediately touching the plane's body.

[KingCub]

[quote="DGFone"]
You still don't feel the forces in a sim. [/quote]
Somewhat. They do have full motion flight sims, I have used many before. But agreed, you still cant get G's and extreme forces.

[quote="DGFone"]
The P-51 example: The pilot learned to fly the Mustang before getting on the sim. And from my own experiences as well, after you learn the real deal, a sim can improve many aspects, mainly because you already experienced what it's like in real life and can mentally compensate for what a sim lacks in feeling. A sim definitely helps once you start flying, but not really before. Heck, in the X-Plane forums, new flyers are actively discouraged from practicing using X-Plane for this reason: the sim trains you wrong procedures compared to real life as to how to fly.[/quote]
A sim does help you once you do start flying, but I learned how do simple things such as climb, coordinated turns, and holding straight and level without ever stepping foot into a real aircraft. I was asked to do these things on my first flight, and was able to do them without to much trouble. Not saying I was perfect, but It was better then any non-sim user.

[quote="DGFone"]
You don't have to learn those using a sim. In fact, most people learn these things on the ground, in the "ground school" part of training. The reason why sims are different with instruments is because ground school can show you pictures and videos of the instruments, but in a sim, you turn the plane and see how the instruments react, and that goes a long way compared to even videos. Traffic pattern, engine management, etc... you're better off learning those on the ground.[/quote]
You learn just about all of that in ground school, I just got finished with it a few months ago. I don't think you can 'learn' it just from someone telling you how to do it. You can sit there and study a map for 24 hours, but until you get up in the air and see VFR waypoint and ground locations, you will never be able to navigate. Still one of the biggest things I struggle with, as I am still new to the area, but I still have about 3 or 4 maps.

[quote="DGFone"]
In the end, it's not really my personal opinion that sims don't teach you the real thing that well. I thought when I started to fly that I would be really good because of my sim experience. Reality proved that while I am still a rather good pilot (first solo performed in a tail-dragger - a feat that only 10% of flyers can do), the only thing that my simulators really helped was IFR and instrument flying.[/quote]
First solo in a tail-dragger? Nice!! For me personally I am able to fly a plane for a few hours, then come home and sit on a sim and go over what I have just learned. This has helped me improve in just about all of my skills for the real thing.

[quote="DGFone"]
To put it simply: I can do a roll in a Cessna in a flight sim any day of the week. But when I am actually in a plane, true, I thought of it, but I never even dared to perform any stunt maneuver as even a tight 45 degree turn, which when done right is about 1.5-2 G's, is already harsh enough on your body that you won't exactly do them just for fun.[/quote]
Very true! The aircraft become much harder to handle in situations such as spins, spirals, stalls, steep turns, and moves just like this. Not saying its not super fun to fly a spin, I would do it any day of the week!

[quote="DGFone"]
And don't even get me started on turbulence. In a sim, just like in real life, the plane just shakes about, but basically follows the same course. But in real life, the fact that you're inside of the place as it bounces around makes a huge difference.
Plus I've never seen a fligh sim properly simulate air currents and thermals. When I fly over the windmill farm next to the airport, even on "calm" days, you can easily climb or drop a few hundred feet while flying "straight and level" simply due to the fact that the airplane is flying inside of moving air.
Despite being "flight simulators", there is no flight simulator that I know of that actually simulates air. Even X-Plane only simulates how the air immediately around a plane will cause it to behave (calculating forces and such), but it doesn't simulate air columns or thermals. Sims like FSX doesn't even simulate the forces, instead just having different values for what happens to the planes when they do whatever at any given situation. I'm not going to argue about which is more "realistic" (both are licensed by the FAA), but neither one of them simulate air that it not immediately touching the plane's body.[/quote]
X-Plane has much better simulation of wind effect on a aircraft, but with newer add-ons most real weather winds can be simulated. I run so many add-ons, the only thing FSX is used for is the terrain mapping. I can get real world winds injected into my flight depending on my location. It will never be 100% accurate, but its a good start. Simulators will never be able to run small pockets of air, such as a windmill, just because of how unpredictable winds can be.

[DGFone]

[quote="KingCub"]
X-Plane has much better simulation of wind effect on a aircraft, but with newer add-ons most real weather winds can be simulated. I run so many add-ons, the only thing FSX is used for is the terrain mapping. I can get real world winds injected into my flight depending on my location. It will never be 100% accurate, but its a good start. Simulators will never be able to run small pockets of air, such as a windmill, just because of how unpredictable winds can be.[/quote]

You can simulate significant columns of air such as thermals, but that alone requires so much computational power, that trying to apply it to a sim that is already doing everything computers can do in real time just to describe how the airplane flies, that it's useless to even try.

X-Plane for instance has no hitboxes for trees and non-skyscapers. Unlike a racing sim, where collision with the walls and damage is normal, when flying, if you hit the ground or an object on the ground- you've had it. So the X-Plane devs chose to forgo the frame-rate loss of having everything be hit-detected like in FSX in turn of having more ground object density - which is a very good idea because Visual Flight Rules - the norm for 99% of pilots (not a fact, but reasonable to assume) requires the ground, and in simulators, a good representation of the ground.

There are satellite imaging packages for simulators, but most are pay-to-download, and when you're low (for instance, the traffic pattern and on approaches), you really need the 3D representation of buildings to tell you how high or low you are, something that flat images, along with consuming VRAM and regular RAM, are bad at.

So one thing I will give X-Plane 10 compared to all other sims is that it uses real world street data (OpenStreetMap) to place roads where actual roads lie, and even placing buildings by class and density to the best available data. It was a funny glitch that was recently fixed that for rural towns, all buildings were auto-generated as large warehouses for some reason.

And seriously, in X-Plane 10, night time + HDR + high traffic density + freeway = TO DIE FOR.

When one guy on the X-Plane forums asked why so much goes into ground AI traffic (traffic lights change color. Not even Need For Speed World, unsure about others) does that! Reasoning: It's important to represent the ground as realistically as possible in order to maximize the VFR abilities.

Current gen consoles have much stricter hardware limitations, so you see things like a lack of damage models in even "realistic" sims like Gran Turismo. But unlike flying a plane, when you race a car, you are quite expected to crash, and knowing what happens when you do crash is vital.

So like Regulus said, GT6 aims to be as realistic as possible, but all the previous games... not really. And what hurt them the most was the simple fact that they were made for boxes with great specs such as 512 MB of RAM. (RAM is required for things like hit detection). So don't expect miracles out of GT6, since it's on the PS3 and not the PS4 as I thought. RAM is RAM. You can't pull it out of nowhere. Remember all the promises GT5 made? How many of them came out true?

Another thing that no one mentioned though: All true sims are a very niche market. As much as people like to brag about how c00l it is to fire a gun that behaves like it does in RL as say, in CoD or BF, those games are very arcadey. A flight sim equivalent of these will be Ace Combat or HAWX. With PCs, simulators are part of the package. But consoles are the direct descendants of the arcade: people get them to have fun, and not to get nerdy and learn things.

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"]Current gen consoles have much stricter hardware limitations, so you see things like a lack of damage models in even "realistic" sims like Gran Turismo.[/quote]

Gran Turismo does have damage modeling, it's just not done very well.

And it's not because the PS3 can't handle it, either.

It's because modeling damage for over a thousand cars is downright absurd. You've made 3D models and animations before, so you should know that.

Also, the creator of the Gran Turismo series wrecked his car once.

[quote]however, the most interesting thing about this video comes from Kazunori Yamauchi, telling a story of an R32 Skyline purchased after college that “passed away” after having been involved in a high speed accident.

Now, more so than ever, it’s becoming clearer why Kazunori was so hesitant to introduce damage into the series.[/quote]

(source)

[quote] But unlike flying a plane, when you race a car, you are quite expected to crash, and knowing what happens when you do crash is vital.[/quote]

The only thing that is not actually modeled in GT5 is the damage. Some of the less serious crashes, like flips and roll-overs, are not modeled all that well, but I digress. If you're concerned about the crashes, you're not concerned about the racing.

I'm concerned about the racing.

I mean, you should see some of the races we have on GT5. It's absolutely amazing.

The only thing that isn't realistic is the crashes, and we have that turned off anyway. Why? Because in a lobby of 10 people, at least 5 of them are idiots. With damage, the 5 idiots screw up on the first lap and eliminate the entire field. What fun is that?

[quote]So like Regulus said, GT6 aims to be as realistic as possible, but all the previous games... not really. And what hurt them the most was the simple fact that they were made for boxes with great specs such as 512 MB of RAM. (RAM is required for things like hit detection).[/quote]

All of the games have been very realistic for their time, with the notable exception of damage.

I know the PS3's RAM is subpar, and I know other developers that complained about that. But, think about this logically:

Gran Turismo is not X plane.

Gran Turismo does not need to draw 50 square miles of terrain every second.

Gran Turismo does not need to draw thousands of buildings, cars, roads, boats, and trees.

Gran Turismo does not need to draw clouds.

Gran Turismo needs to draw one track, that's no bigger than 12 miles long.

Gran Turismo needs to draw, at most, 16 cars in detail.

In Gran Turismo, the environments outside of the track are all sprites.

Gran Turismo runs in 1080p HD. Even Gran Turismo 4, on the PS2, was able to output HD.

Considering that, Gran Turismo obviously puts much of those resources into lighting. Gran Turismo has quite an impressive light and shader model. This is actually in-game; notice the driver's helmet says Gran Turismo.



All Gran Turismo needs to simulate in detail are the forces between the wheels and the road. Guess what? It does that almost flawlessly.

[quote]
So don't expect miracles out of GT6, since it's on the PS3 and not the PS4 as I thought. RAM is RAM. You can't pull it out of nowhere.[/quote]

Gran Turismo doesn't need all the ram in the world, because it isn't generating a model of all the world.

[quote]Remember all the promises GT5 made? How many of them came out true?[/quote]

All of them, actually.

[quote]With PCs, simulators are part of the package. But consoles are the direct descendants of the arcade: people get them to have fun, and not to get nerdy and learn things.[/quote]

That's hardly even a trend. How many PC games are the same arcade-style games as console games? Probably upwards of 90% of the market.

You can have simulators on consoles, and you can have arcade games on PCs. To say otherwise is quite foolish.

The only driving simulators I can think of for PC are iRacing and rFactor. I've tried both before and I was as impressed as a hippo with a hernia. rFactor feels just as real, but looks much worse than GT5 and has no damage model. iRacing is still stuck in 2003; in fact, its the same game as Nascar 2003 for PC, only rebranded like a new game of CoD.