No Anti Aliasing in Demo

Well, I’m a bit disappointed that there was no or pretty low Anti Aliasing in the Demo, hope the full version will do better.

1 Like

same here! the Ford GT is beautiful but if you look at a Subaru ou something else the anti aliasing looks worst than in F5 or is it just me? :frowning:

I think it’s time for someone to explain the 60 frames per second thing to me.

I get that 30 frames per second is not ideal for “sim” racing. I see the difference jumping from Horizon to Motorsport and I totally get it. What I don’t understand is that games are either 30fps or 60fps, never in between. I can only imagine it’s due to the screen refresh rate of LCDs being 60hz? So it’s to avoid screen tearing then? Am I correct?

What bothers me is that I play lots of games on my PC that run in the 40-50fps range, and that’s a very smooth frame rate - plus I never see screen tearing. Would 45 frames per second really be a problem? Would screen tearing really start showing up? I play Battlefield 4 on PC at around 45 fps and it’s perfectly fluid with no screen tearing.

Because if the game ran at 45fps instead of 60 I’m sure there would be enough headroom there to add some decent AA and we would have a much better image quality, and still have a 50% improvement in fluidity over 30fps.

Oh boy, that is a topic much too large for me to explain. I’ve tried to ram it into my roommates heads for years now, and if you can’t see it you can’t see it. Not to be rude or mean, but just because you don’t SEE screen tearing on PC while under 60FPS but above 30FPS does not mean it isn’t there. If you are really interested in it try looking up some articles about a computer game graphical option called V-sync. I say “computer game option” because consoles users do not get to adjust it 99.9% of the time, but it tries to lock the FPS to the screens refresh rate so you have a glass smooth experience. when it can’t keep a sustained 60FPS it is then forced to drop down to half of that rate, or 30FPS.

To keep things simple console developers generally pick which one they feel will suit their game best and adjust the graphics to hit that FPS goal. This is also part of why you notice the lack of Anti Aliasing in the FM games when compared to the FH games. For a console of this power level to maintain 60FPS with something like 4xAA would be terribly difficult, especially with 24 cars to account for and things like tire smoke and rain or dynamic lights at night. You can try googling articles about V-sync (and triple buffering, which might just get you a V-synched 45FPS depending on your computer hardware) if you want to know more. Or try - I love that place to death and have been a member for many years. Lots of PC knowledge over there.

Lastly, here is a site that I use to test people and see if they have the gift or not. Just choose the 60vs30 options and have at it. I’ve been through that test a dozen times and I missed one time. Meanwhile, my roommate insists that they are the same video on both sides…

they are the exact same to me on both sides too, no matter what. I see no difference.

Oh my god. Although I’ve stated before I can tell the difference in 30 vs 60 fps between FH2 and FM5 I didn’t think I would be able to tell the difference in this test. Shockingly I could tell immediately on almost every test! I only missed one (the helicopter game) and stopped after the follow the sun game. The 60 fps games just look sharper. (some describe as more cartoonish.)

At the same time, I ran the FM6 demo again last night and still didn’t notice any jaggies. I’m sure they are there but I must look right over them. My TV is a 40" LCD Plasma. It’s gotta be 9 years old now so it’s not a really nice one. It is 1080p but perhaps the details are just not a sharp? Or perhaps it has it’s own AA built in?

All I know is that Turn 10 has made the right choices on graphics for FM6. As far as i’m concerned, 60fps is much more important - and more noticeable than a high level of AA - in a racing game. (perhaps those that do more designing and photography will disagree though.)

But those people doing photos will have photo AA anyways, which is a supersampling AA of very high quality :-).

1 Like

Some of these examples are definitely better than others. Fast movement definitely makes the difference more obvious.

I just did that test on the frameratematters site, and was surprised to get 100% on the 30v60 test. The difference was fairly clear to me when comparing two videos side by side, but I don’t believe I would be able to just look at something in isolation and say “yep, that’s 30/60 fps”.

same here! the Ford GT is beautiful but if you look at a Subaru ou something else the anti aliasing looks worst than in F5 or is it just me? :frowning:

And same here.
For whatever reason, there’s even some visible seams where the textures meet, on some cars. FM5 didn’t have this problem.

I love the demo, though. But yeah, everybody expects FM5’s technical standards to be met or actually surpassed, so this is weird.

1 Like

Same here, I thought it looked rough as soon as it started! In fact in some ways FM5 does indeed look better…

If you want to see the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps, watch the rear view mirror in FM6 demo. The main (forward) view is 60 fps, the mirrors are rendered in 30 fps.

I personally prefer the look of 30 fps (most films are shot at 24 fps so it gives the images a more cinematic feel), but for games with high-speed gameplay (like racing games, shooters, and fighting games) 60 fps is necessary because your eyes and brain pick up so much information in every frame (even if you can’t consciously notice it) and more frames = more information.

Well, if framerate is that big problem. Maybe they can add some AA as soon as the game and X1 gets DX 12 Update, or is it already DX 12?

Turn10 has stated that the ForzaTech engine is DX11 based, so FM6 does not use DX12.

DX12 offloads instructions to the GPU to improve CPU performance. But XB1 has a really weak GPU, so DX12 is not going to provide a substantial performance improvement (at least not this early on it it’s release. Devs need to time to understand exactly which parts of DX12 will be beneficial for the XB1’s hardware).

Same here, I thought it looked rough as soon as it started! In fact in some ways FM5 does indeed look better…


I agree that 30fps isn’t ideal for racing, but I was suggested 45fps could be a good compromise between fluidity and being able to add some AA, even if it’s only FXAA.

I do play games on the PC, but some are only available on the Xbox One, like this one! I’ve tried PC racing games and they’re not to my taste. Also, a console doesn’t have to have cutting edge PC graphics, I agree, but it should be more than what we have now. The Xenos was cutting edge and PC comparable when the 360 launched.

Ultimately we were screwed over with the GPU in the Xbox One, that’s really where all these issues stem from…but don’t get me started on THAT can of worms!!

I’d also rather have 45fps or 920p and “just” 16 cars on track (which was chaotically enough in FM5, tbh, I’m actually wondering if 24 won’t be too much already) and some better looking texture seams, less jaggies and better draw distance (<-- no first hand experience, I couldn’t play the demo yet, but someone said the draw distance is lower now).

Isn’t it strange that FM6 looks more flawed than FM5? Even some of the weather effects looked better in FH2. I know, I know, 30fps, but it was an open world game with dynamic weather and lighting.

For the ten year anniversary of Forza, this is a little disappointing.

Is forza 6 running native 1920x1080? or is it uprezed?

It’s native 1080p.