Do we need better graphics?

gt7.jpg
With Gran Turismo 7 right around the corner and the next iteration of Forza Motorsport due later this year, it’s about time we talked about graphics - eye candy.

Whilst neither of these franchises are sims, both have shown they can push their respective hardware to the limits. For instance, Forza Motorsport 7 ran at 4k 60fps (albeit with clever supersampling) on a Xbox One X, which dragged along it’s ancient CPU from 2013!

The PlayStation 5 will allow users to play GT7 in 4K at 60fps on launch, and it’s not too far fetched to expect 120fps in the future. The PlayStation 5 can output 4K up to 120 fps, but that doesn’t mean that the frame rate can be maintained and Polyphony have not released anything official about increasing the frame rate of GT7 in the future.

Whilst we don’t know the specification of Forza Motorsport 8 yet, we should expect it to be comparable to GT7 in terms of graphics and frame rates.

Here’s an official video from Sony, showcasing the Daytona International Speedway


This is without doubt the best looking version of Daytona I have ever seen in a racing game. The level of detail of the stands, the surrounding area of the track, the lighting, detail of cars, and even the level of detail of the driver’s gloves are incredible.

With all of the above taken into account, should we expect more from sims?

AMS2 is the best looking sim to be had right now and it’s rendition of Daytona does not stand up to GT7. Yes Daytona looks awesome in AMS2, but the sheer amount of detail in GT7 is startling.

Apart from ACC with all the graphic settings turned up (if you have some kind of supercomputer) and Assetto Corsa with an insane amount of mods, all other sims look at least a generation old. To be fair, most are at least a generation behind in graphic fidelity.

Many will argue that there’s far more going on in a sim, more complex physics, tyre modelling, and so much much more. And those of you who make that argument are right, there is a lot more going on within these sims, but does that mean we should compromise on the aspects of these sims?

So whilst there is the argument that sims have so much more going on than graphics, most of the major sims are using technology that is 14 years old (DirectX11).

Unfortunately, money talks. iRacing is the most played sim, you know there’s always players online and grids usually fill up at most times of the day. On any usual day there are around 10k players online at any time.

iRacing has one tenth the number of GT Sport players on a daily basis. In February 2021, Polyphony Digital celebrated 9.5 million players. With this amount of revenue and the backing of Sony, they are able to employ larger development teams and extract every last ounce of performance out of a PlayStation.

With that all being said, should we expect better graphics in our favorite sims? Or are graphics lower down on the demands you want from a sim?
About author
Damian Reed
PC geek, gamer, content creator, and passionate sim racer.
I live life a 1/4 mile at a time, it takes me ages to get anywhere!

Comments

Something to remember (which I believe is still true in GT7 and Forza etc) is that the graphics are baked?

This is one reason they look so good.

Whereas AMS2, ACC etc aren't baked at all — they can transition from day to night, sunny to stormy. This adds a huge overhead, and some complexity to the way things render. It's easier to make everything look amazing when it's baked, harder to make things look _really_ perfect when it's not as there are so many different variables.

Does anyone know if this is still true?
 
MPOV: what counts, as long as we speak SIMULATION, it should remain a SIMULATION. If the graphics are getting better, I don't turn my back on it... but I'd prefer to put MAXIMUM efforts into SIMULATING the thing as real as it gets, instead of choosing to develop better graphics against SIMULATION. So do I really need better graphics? Not on my first line of need when it's about a simulation.... if graphics are the more important, then... turn to any other beatyfull arcadish driving game ;)
 
Premium
I think there comes a point though when the needs of those on lesser systems is outweighed by pushing onwards with tech. What annoys me is when stuff isn't optimised and needs higher level gear than it really should do. ACC being one example when you compare it's looks to AMS2/PC2. Well in VR anyway (which WILL be the future at some point)
This is closely related to what I was trying to write. My point is that I should be able to make some compromises and run ACC in VR and just accept that it won't look like someone running it on a high-end system with a great monitor. It doesn't have to look awesome on every system, but it should be at least possible.

And I don't mean running this on an ancient system either, so that's where I see the relationship between your comment and mine. Of course, at some point, every PC will be incapable of running the latest thing.
 
My 2cents:
The only area where I need "better" graphics is VR. And by better I mean good and consistent framerates. It is exhausting to tweak VR visual settings per different race conditions, because of framerate variability. Also, some VR support is outright lazy and sloppy. For example, VR UI should not depend on 2D resolution, and it is easy to achieve that, but unfortunately not all games do that.

Other than that visuals is the last thing I care about in motorsport simulation, that's why I generally prefer older, more feature rich games.
 
Last edited:
I've just stuck an intel 12400 in and it's substantially improved my framerates. An example is the 1975 mod in AC, I was getting about 67fps out of it in VR with 11 cars. No great really. Now I'm hitting my 90fps limit with 20 cars (don't usually play single player with more cars anyway). Going to start turning up graphical options until it drops now. I guess my old CPU was holding my card back.
 
Graphics will mean nothing if the physics isn’t there and to be honest, gt sport holds nothing to pc sims. Let’s see, hopeful but the hype isnt often substantiated with gt
 
Of course we do. There's still a lot to go in terms of not just fidelity but detail and quality. I think 4K is the plausible max for a couple of decades but stuff like Ray Tracing will prove to really become useful especially for games with 24 hour cycles.

Especially sim racing, since most sim racers say they don't care about graphics then stuff 500 graphics mods into a flat and aged looking platform and call it an "essential mod".

And Gran Turismo / Forza are sims. Not good ones, but they do aim to be driving simulators.
 
Last edited:
With the right apps & settings, Assetto Corsa graphics already surpass Forza & GT7 especially if you're talking photo realistic lighting


Should be an apples to apples comparison. These apps, while they change the look, color pallet or add some fake blurring effect - they dont address core game issues, like good shadows, lack of good ambient occlusion and those awful spectators...

Those videos show 8 year old tracks and cars with lip stick on.

Can't mod GT7 and it can do what it does at 4K 60fps, without downloading or configuring a single app.

(and man... I need gravol after watching that first video)
 
Tbh, I don't really care that much for better graphics. I allready own games that have far more advanced graphics engines than my favorite sim but I still go back to the less advanced games for various reasons. I see complaints from people with much better hardware than I have complaining about performance issues in the current sims. For example, I love to run bigger grids like ELMS in rF2 with over 50 cars or Nordschleife with up to 100 cars. Is anyone even able to run those big grids with all cars visible and the game maxed out in varying conditions with VR? Same goes for ACC? All I see in GT or FM are grids of 16 cars maybe a bit more with wierd physics. What counts most for me is fidelity and everything that surrounds a realistic experience. You can have the most amazing looking game, but it falls appart when the sound, the physics and the rest of the experience doesn't stand up to it.

People will laugh at me but there are times when rF2 tricks me into thinking that I am sitting in a real car, especialy with the new shaders and reflection system in rainy conditions, when the animated flags are reflected, the sun is setting and the content is of very high quality, like Le Mans for example. And I am not even running it at full beans. i would rather see more features added to the current roster of sims that make the experience more complete. Like better dash systems in rF2, ambients effects, more advanced rule system, damage systems, advanced AI with AI that has personality. There is so much that can be done to make sims more realsitic, but in some ways we moved away from this allready. Some people allready freak out if there is collision in the pitlane and they have to key bind a pit limiter ...
 
Hell yes, more eye candy the better.
The downside of this, is that if we want all this today, the bad cooling of Gaming systems needs to be fixed. [Consoles]. A breaktrough in making the chips we need, would help. Putting some polish on what we have, aint to bad. Cheap Gaming 4k at 200 Hz, is a dream I think ...
 
Last edited:
At this point in time, looking at most of the sims that are available I would say absolutely. They are a huge part in creating a believable, immersive experience for many users. While graphical fidelity isn't very important for the racing simulation itself, driving around these still, lifeless worlds/circuits certainly detracts from the experience a little bit.

One thing that always bothered me with sims is vegetation. I know, I know, nobody (except me apparently) looks at the trees and bushes beyond what they see with their peripheral vision for 1/1000th of a second. I also know that good foliage can come at a huge performance cost, but damn I would love to see some SpeedTree grade vegetation start to replace the 2D stuff we're seemingly stuck on. Seeing some trees sway with the direction and intensity of the wind as I tear around the Nordschleife would make me a very happy person.
 
Simulation must always come first...

No matter the cost to eye candy...

Frame rates are what matters in terms of graphics... EVERYTHING else is just fluff that isn't required if it takes away from the simulation aspects...

Complex physics that make using a wheel set up enjoyable mixed with a smooth graphical experience is the only thing that should matter to a sim racer...

All of the eye candy games (pCARS, Forza, GT, The Crew, Grid, etc) are fun for a short period until you try and push to the limits and find the various bugs or missing features within their physics... The only thing that really keeps me playing those is the ability to unlock new cars to run around in... Most of the time I don't even bother to power up the wheel with them... Because they are clearly designed for the casual player on a control pad...

These arcade games get a lot of casual players who just don't have the time or the inclination to jump head first into sim racing... A lot of those who want in on sim racing are stuck working and trying to keep the rest of the lives together... And it's hard to explain taking the time needed to get the most out of yourself to the rest of the family if they're not a racing family... Let alone the costs of a good rig... So they stick to the eye candy titles because it's easy to have half an hours worth of fun for them...

Sim racing will be a niche for as long as the petrol guzzling machines are allowed to turn a wheel in real life... When burning petrol and it's derivatives is outlawed in the future (a lot of money has to change hands first, just like when slavery was made illegal) then there will be a lot of focus on what the sims can reproduce from the petrol era from real world drivers, manufacturers/racing teams with driver development programs and also the fans... When things like the Goodwood festival of speed has to be at least partially online to showcase the cars from the petrol era that run the event...
 
Graphics are the least important checkbox on my list. I mean, it's NICE to have good graphics and all, but I'd rather have an exhilarating driving/ffb model.
This also raises the question -- what are "Good" graphics?
I think that most of the games that are praised for good graphics actually look unrealistic, shiny, glarey, blurry and oversaturated. It's a matter of taste, I suppose.
 
I don't need a super good looking graphic i just want a good game. GT series are famous for how good and successful they are. I just hope that greed isn't in the eyes of Polyphony, i seriously expect a lot from them and if GT7 turns out to be just a money snatch i will really be disappointed. Lets hope for the best out of best for Polyphony and GT7
 
Do we need better graphics? no

Do we want better graphics? yes

Do we need higher framerates? YES

Do we want want higher framerates? DEFINITELY

Framerate is king. The graphics are merely there to do a job, the framerate is what immerses you.
Ultimate comment on the subject
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Damian Reed
Article read time
3 min read
Views
15,915
Comments
84
Last update

How long have you been simracing

  • < 1 year

    Votes: 559 17.4%
  • < 2 years

    Votes: 379 11.8%
  • < 3 years

    Votes: 341 10.6%
  • < 4 years

    Votes: 243 7.6%
  • < 5 years

    Votes: 390 12.1%
  • < 10 years

    Votes: 367 11.4%
  • < 15 years

    Votes: 215 6.7%
  • < 20 years

    Votes: 168 5.2%
  • < 25 years

    Votes: 136 4.2%
  • Ok, I am a dinosaur

    Votes: 419 13.0%
Back
Top