DriveClub isn’t running at 60 frames per second yet, but Evolution is still hoping to hit the frame rate in time for launch, the studio told VideoGamer today.
they only have 2 months!
Good optimization, and they'll get there. PS4 has the goods.
This game I bet will be an epic failure, it's a reason why Sony is rewarding all plus members with this... It's a reason for that...30fps in a racing game is a NONO...
@KiLLUMiNATi_89: It certainly looks like it will be. After all, at E3, the game was reported to be 35% complete! o_0 So in about 4 months, the studio is to go from less than half developed to testing, re-iterating, then alpha, then beta and finally release with polish and 60 fps. In the meanwhile, the game has barely been shown, features barely discussed, and all the talk is about 60fps aim, which is the industry standard for this type of game! I smell turd, but that is my opinion! I hope not though....
Killuminati by that rather idiotic logic then Fifa 14 will be an epic failure as well, since Europe's getting it for free, and Killer Instinc as well ( the fact that Double Helx is developing it doesn't help either)... See we all can post idiotic stuff.
Ill remember this conversation and ill get back to you a year from now, that game will be a failure, who's buying that unproven game? Might as well wait 2-3 weeks and the mass ( Sony crowd) can just get GT6 instead of that... Even tho it's a ps3 game GT6 trashes DriveClub in every department... Btw Fifa is a successful franchise and duhh makes sense for MS to bundle that game for Europeans... Killer instincts on the other hand isn't getting hyped like Drive club , you have people on this site with loonies comments saying that game will be equal to forza... Blasphemous
This focus on 60fps really disturbs me. There is no talk about other things going on, AI, weather, terrain, etc., only FPS. There are factors that will make the need for sacrifice necessary, how difficult is that to understand? Sometimes the gaming conversation can really degenerate into a focus on the wrong things, kinda sad really. I hope the pressure to bump up the FPS doesn't translate into cuts in other areas. That would definitely be unfortunate.
Welcome to the new age, where people buy games based on their visuals instead of good content. @Lopez FPS are also visual.
Individuals maybe, but not all. The Last of Us clearly had both. Same with the Uncharted games. I do understand your point tho, but considering the technological advances we have there's no reason increased graphical abilities shouldn't be made. PC has great graphics and good games, consoles can too.
FPS is not visuals, it is performance,and performance is extremely important.
The framerate is very important for racing games imo.
FPS is not just visual. It effects input. If you can have 60 pieces of feedback a second to react to you would rather have 60 than 30. I love visuals, there's no shame in it. People look a good looking game but good looking games dont work just based on good looks. I played NFS MW recently and it looked pretty but the design choices made me not like the game. Besides we're starting a new generation, we want to see wants new and fancy, cut us some slack.
The only FPS affects visuals are what you will gain or loose in graphcs, when upping or lowering the FPS. So aiming for 60 fps, when the game is around 30 fps, means visuals will stay at best what it is (unlikely) or drop significant graphics.
It may not need it. I agree with you and I do hope this doesn't mean cuts in other important errors but what I get from this is they just need to optimise it so 60FPS is possible
You make sound so easy, but hopefully they can reach the 60fps at no cost to other features.
Weather, various locales (mountains, tracks, etc...), Day & Night cycle have all been confirmed for Drive Club. 1080p @ 60fps is the final goal they want to hit. As far as A.I. goes I'm sure it'll be good, because the A.I. in Motorstorm was good, and Evolution now has talent from pretty much every major racing game franchise under their belt. DriveClub is the closest thing to Project Cars on consoles, with everything being done real time, and that's an impressive feat for a launch title.
@timotim I'm speaking technically what the games do are similar (dynamics, weather, damage, day/night, real-time rendering, etc...), not how the games play (arcade-sim DC, true sim PC).
I don't get it either. I said here once that I can't tell the difference and some people couldn't believe. Seriously, I can't. Which means, instead of a pretty number, I prefer better AI, more lights, textures, better physics and more interaction with the environment.
People make too much noise about 60fps. Its good but its not essential. Its more important that the frames per second is Constant and not going up and down. Thats when you notice it. A rock solid 30 fps can be as smooth as butter. The bottomline is is a 60fps game from the time you press the button to the time is registers is 16/1000ths of a second. That means a 30fps game is only 16/1000ths of a second slower. Are we F1 or drag racing drivers? Can we really count that short amount of time.
And look at what happened to those games that targeted 30fps. Many couldn't even maintain the frame-rate and even sacrificed the resolution output more "visuals". Bleagh.. Cheap visual tricks on the cost of performance is exactly the reason why so many games don't play well.
@WorldGamer while i agree with what you are saying, i think 60 FPS is a must for racing games it really does make the difference.
Is there a reason why devs only choose 30 or 60? why can't developers make a game at 40 or 50fps?
Engine might not be well optimized
There's a bunch of reasons, but here are a few. 30 is a minimal, because once you start going lower you start noticing lag in the controls, as well as bigger drops in fps which when low enough turns you game into a slideshow. So 30 fps is the lowest you want to go, but it also allows for better graphics in most cases. 60 fps is pretty much to point where the eyes can't tell the difference unless a game is running at 100+ fps. 60 fps also reduces control lag. Most HDTV's run at 30Hz or 60Hz (120Hz / 240Hz exist), and so to take advantage of that the content usually runs at those same Hz. There's nothing wrong with a game running 40 - 50 and it's usually just as good of an experience, but if you can hit the 50 range why not go for 60, and if you're in the lower 40's why not drop to 30 and add a few extra graphical effects. If you're happy with 45fps then by all means stick to it. It's just a console selling point really as PC games run all over the board from 30 - 100+.
Good, logical response to a good question. Bubbles for everyone above. Hope they make it happen in any case, game seems like it's shaping up to be tons of fun.
The eye naturally sees at 30 fps. 60 fps makes it twice that, so a simulation would run smoother. However, when you go into these in-between numbers, it doesn't feel natural and instead feels kind of choppy.
We see at a lot faster than 30fps. Which is why it takes a MINIMUM of 24(film) to trick our eyes into seeing fluid motion. Of course, we have our upper limits, too, where things are moving so quickly that we're unable to see them do so. The in-between numbers feel "choppy" because televisions don't typically output at those rates. Has nothing to do with our eyes, and everything to do with our technology.
Most displays have a refresh rate of 60 Hz. If they choose any other framerate (40, 45, 50, etc), that would lead to significant tearing (top half of the TV is rendering a different frame than the bottom half), which is ugly and undesirable. Vertical Sync is commonly used to eliminate (or at least mitigate) screen tearing. When you have a game running at 30 FPS or 60 FPS, you can easily synchronize the game's rendering speed with the display's refresh rate (i.e, wait for 2 refreshes before delivering the next frame (30 FPS); or wait for every refresh before delivering the next frame (60 FPS)). That's why we always use units of 60 (60 / 2 = 30; 60 * 2 = 120; 60 * 4 = 240; etc).
Cool, I think I understand now.
Save it for Driveclub 2. I don't want them to compromise graphics just to achieve 60fps.
Performance is more important...
With forza reaching great graphics and 60fps there gonna try hard to get 60fps just to stay competitive.
But is Forza at 1080 p native?
But what Drive Club lacks in physics- which isn't graphically intensive, anyway- it makes up for in -gasp!- graphical content. The details and effects going on in Drive Club are far more taxing graphically than what's happening in Forza. Which is fine for them. They sacrifice dynamic weather and lighting for higher fps. As for me, I prefer the challenge of racing in different environments and under different conditions, so 30fps isn't much of a bother to me.
if forza 5 ran at 30fps and the dev said they have a couple of months to go to try and hit 60fps sony fanboys would be all over this. we all know it. if it doesnt hit 60 fps then it proves this game is being rushed to be a launch title.
I think they aren't trying to comprise the graphical quality. They might be making optimizations bit by bit.
Everyone is saying that there is not enough time but if you saw the DR3 GC demo that was at an awful framerate! I have every confidence evolution can hit 60, look at the difference from their demos of Motorstorm and the finished game. They will surprise again.
They shouldn't have even said they are targeting 60fps. I can envisage the nerd rage if it's released at only 30fps when everyone is expecting 60fps.
I wish they did a Motorstorm game, i loved the first motorstorm game on ps3, played it for many hours, enough racers we already have big ones like forza and GT I want burnout, motorstorm etc.. the crew looks great :)
Sometimes I still play Motorstorm Pacific Rift. Great game
I hope they can do it. :)
I think SONY should delay this game it needs to be 1080p 60 fps. If SONY wants it to be a launch game they should send in some of the GRAN TURISMO TEAM to help.
If they did that it wouldnt come out for another 4 years with alot of the cars being low quality ports from GT on the PS2...
no 60 fps...lol
wouldn't it be nice if you could choose a setting? better visuals at 30fps or a little worse visuals at 60fps. But what I'm talking about this is a console game.
Would rather have a true next gen game then sacrifice it all just to achieve 60fps. Sounds really unnecessary. It looks and plays fine from what I've seen.
Just don't downscale any of the detail to do so. It looks smooth and fluid at 30fps anyway, and it also looks insanely gorgeous.
@timotim How do you know FORZA5 has a more advanced physics system then driveclub. FORZA5 has a basic lighting system. Used last gen. DRIVECLUB has a dynamic lighting system, aka, GT5,PROJECT CARS etc. It also has dynamic clouds, sky at night. While pushing huge vista's. Not saying FORZA5 looks bad. But it's pushing nowhere near as much realtime.
WindBlowsAgain: Play Forza5 and DriveClub side by side and honestly tell me DriveClub has better graphics Lol
Its actually hard to tell which one looks better imo.
Javinator. I will asap. I like day/night cycles, dynamic lighting since it was used in quake3 long ago. GT5 lighting is better then Forza5's. Which is one of the reason's it took time on the PS3. @Timotim. That is still not proof, i've seen DC and the car handling is fine with people that know how to drive. https://www.youtube.com/wat... As for car detail, those are in game. I've seen forza, at the start showing you a high def model with correct lighting, then start the game. It is not the same car, a blind man could see that.lol. https://www.youtube.com/wat... Forza5 should be doing this.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.