Those run at sub-1080p right? They can mitigate it that way.ya thats rather bad. i think that only applies to andromeda though. ive never seen that in any of the battlefield or battlefront games
Those run at sub-1080p right? They can mitigate it that way.ya thats rather bad. i think that only applies to andromeda though. ive never seen that in any of the battlefield or battlefront games
There's honestly nothing ground breaking in Forza horizon 4. It looks great, but nothing driveclub didn't already do.
Not for Horizon and God of War. Not sure why you'd make such a claim.
H4 has better foliage, weather, sky box, lighting, water, IQ, leaves, lod, pop in than all the game you are mention.
Most people on these boards do indeed post photomode screenshots - not actual gameplay shots.
I have the game. I think most people are wow'd by HZD because of it's pure art-direction. And for that, I can't argue. But for technical rendering and fidelity of solving the rendering equation, it is way far behind. Take a look at the 2 pics I left there. Look at the character's clothing and hair. They are completely lit by ambient light probes (i.e. glowing when they should be darker) which makes the character stand out from the rest of the scene. It's these kinds of rendering tricks that are hard for me to look past and shows the limitations of the hardware.
I think that's likely intentional though. I personally enjoy the way Aloy stands out, since you can always appreciate her model and animations. I don't think Horizon is going for outright realism, it's going for hyper realism. A sort of ethereal exaggerated look and feel. It's why night time itself is never actually pitch black or really dark, instead there's always this effervescent sort of moonlit atmospheric aesthetic. In that sense it's not pure art direction people such as myself admire about the games visuals, but the extremely visually rewarding balance it has managed between both art direction and technical achievement.
It just also happens to be one of the most technically accomplished and awarded games in recent memory, winning numerous prestigious graphics and tech awards over the years, above other technical beasts, behemoths and contemporaries.
Most people on these boards do indeed post photomode screenshots - not actual gameplay shots.
I have the game. I think most people are wow'd by HZD because of it's pure art-direction. And for that, I can't argue. But for technical rendering and fidelity of solving the rendering equation, it is way far behind. Take a look at the 2 pics I left there. Look at the character's clothing and hair. They are completely lit by ambient light probes (i.e. glowing when they should be darker) which makes the character stand out from the rest of the scene. It's these kinds of rendering tricks that are hard for me to look past and shows the limitations of the hardware.
Even Digital Foundry states that classic skybox implementations such as the one used in FH4, do not compare to actual accomplished volemtric cloud systems, such as those implemented in Red Dead Redemption 2, Horizon Zero Dawn and DriveClub. And how could they? One is basically just a flat mapped texture, whilst the other is a proper volemtric cloud simulation.
Yeah except for matching DC in the open world space and having better IQ simultaneously even on base hardware. Forza Horizon 4 is a technical feat.
What game is it?
Forza Horizon 4 and RDR2 can't decide between them two
Not only the best graphics, but both running in perfect native 4k quality and smooth performance
Forza Horizon 4 Photothread :)
https://www.resetera.com/threads/forza-horizon-4-photography-and-media-thread.69830/
Detroit Become Human
There's honestly nothing ground breaking in Forza horizon 4. It looks great, but nothing driveclub didn't already do.
How you can conclude FH4 has better foliage when it has an abundance of previous gen style cross hatch bitmap sprite based trees, or skies too, when it uses simple texture based skyboxes (pattern/texture mapped over a large invisible dome), whilst other games have consistently more advanced tree models with more polygon imposters and/or higher numbers of textures etc, as well as actual fully volumetric clouds with realistic cloud physics, penetration, scattering, volume, dispersion, light reaction, interaction properties etc, is completely beyond me.
Even Digital Foundry states that classic skybox implementations such as the one used in FH4, do not compare to actual accomplished volemtric cloud systems, such as those implemented in Red Dead Redemption 2, Horizon Zero Dawn and DriveClub. And how could they? One is basically just a flat mapped texture, whilst the other is a proper volemtric cloud simulation.
For the record, I do agree that foliage in God of War, like in FH4, often looks a bit pants, partly down to its similar use of crossed bitmap sprite based trees. Though I'd still argue the trees and foliage look better overall in FH4 than God of War, because at least there's a greater volume of other higher quality foliage to draw attention away, plus the poor cross hatch sprite based trees in FH4 aren't too noticeable in actual motion, especially when you have an abundance of motion blur.
If we're talking Forza Horizon 4 on the base Xbox One hardware, perhaps that wouldn't be far from the truth, apart form the fact that Forza Horizon 4 does it all in an open-world setting which requires a more refined streaming solution, selective destruction of various terrain props, far more surface types (including deformable mud, deep snow, and simulated water), and so on.
On Xbox One X and PC, however, it does many things that Driveclub simply does not do. And yes, if Driveclub got updated for PS4 Pro, it might have done some of those things as well, but that argument is moot, since Driveclub remains unenhanced.
You are wrong about FH4's skyboxes, and comparing them to simple textures mapped on flat surfaces is doing all the work that Playground have done a huge disservice. Yes, there are no volumetric clouds, and the background image of the sky is basically a high resolution video feed, but it also informs the lighting of the whole scene, including shadows, and fog. On top of that, there's a complex physical simulation of the atmosphere first implemented in Forza Horizon 2, and retained in later games, which decides when the concentration of particles in the air causes the rain to fall, when rainbows form, and so on. It's not just pretty photos.
Sorry but fh4 on base Xbone doesn't come close to driveclub.If we're talking Forza Horizon 4 on the base Xbox One hardware, perhaps that wouldn't be far from the truth, apart form the fact that Forza Horizon 4 does it all in an open-world setting which requires a more refined streaming solution, selective destruction of various terrain props, far more surface types (including deformable mud, deep snow, and simulated water), and so on.
On Xbox One X and PC, however, it does many things that Driveclub simply does not do. And yes, if Driveclub got updated for PS4 Pro, it might have done some of those things as well, but that argument is moot, since Driveclub remains unenhanced.
You are wrong about FH4's skyboxes, and comparing them to simple textures mapped on flat surfaces is doing all the work that Playground have done a huge disservice. Yes, there are no volumetric clouds, and the background image of the sky is basically a high resolution video feed, but it also informs the lighting of the whole scene, including shadows, and fog. On top of that, there's a complex physical simulation of the atmosphere first implemented in Forza Horizon 2, and retained in later games, which decides when the concentration of particles in the air causes the rain to fall, when rainbows form, and so on. It's not just pretty photos.
The images are taken from high resolution video, but I don't believe they're actually a video, rather the traditional texture map system. I've actually come to the end of the texture map or re-wrap point twice, so I'm not entirely sure how much of an impact they're having in terms of informing the rest of the scene beyond basic instructions.
For real? Please search for a comparison video on youtube, you sure as hell are mistaken. Every single aspect from the Duscae demo was upgraded in the final product.I dunno, even on Pro i thought it looked a bit bad, lacking AF & very blurry TAA that didn't work, foliage was also PS3 tier. The Duscae demo though, ignoring IQ issues, is one of the best looking games this gen imo, the lighting was incredible, the fact they downgraded it makes no sense to me.
I bought a PS4 last month and in the space of 3 weeks i went....
Spiderman is the best looking game i have ever played
oh wait, Uncharted 4 is the best.
Then i bought an XB1X a few weeks ago...
Forza Horizon 4 is far and away the best.....
oh wait, its Read Dead Redemption 2.
Im guessing the people saying Horizon Zero dawn are on about the PRO version. As im not finding it that impressive. Its nice dont get me wrong but is no where near the level of those mentioned.
(Although Cuphead is so astonishingly wonderful i feel it might beat everything ever)
It's not intentional. Nearly every game has this common problem. The solution is to ray-trace ambient occlusion or use the Voxel-based approach used in FFXV. This will attenuate the light energy and force to darker areas that need to be in shadow.
i dunno, the duscae lighting is pretty infamous. it really does look flatter in the final game. Could be just color grading & bloom though.For real? Please search for a comparison video on youtube, you sure as hell are mistaken. Every single aspect from the Duscae demo was upgraded in the final product.