I watched the trailer many times and I was worried it may be a render, and not a gameplay video in any way. (atleast in some scenes) On the other hand, Rockstar's singularity has always been that they made video trailers from the game.
My four take on this. Hair, smoke, details, post-effects.
The work of light and the level of reflections in puddles and glossy surfaces were also amazing, but with hired technologies like PTX this is possible
Hair.
I think many of us have already seen in games the visually correct dynamic behavior of hair relative to the inertia of the character’s movements. (according to the behavior of soft bodies)
But I have never seen a good collision of hair with items of clothing and body. Here you can see how the hair reacts correctly to the body during the animation.
Smoke
Apparently, volumetric are involved here, and it is also dynamic, i.e. This is either a simulation or some kind of complex shader. You can also notice that volumetrics respond correctly to light sources. You can see how the car's headlights illuminate smoke.
Amount of details.
Just look at this, I'm sure it's a pre-made scene, debris on the asphalt, broken glass, liquid, crumpled impact on the guardrail, crumpled barrels (although it's possible that it's is okay because it's part of a local news program, and they need some pre-made scene for that)
Quantity and quality of dirt texture on the skin and on clothes.
Detailing of debris underfoot. You can also notice the potholes, the asphalt in which grass grows in the cracks, the amount of detail is amazing.
Post-effects.
A huge number of cinimatic post-effects are not needed for the game, but they were probably made only for the trailer. Depth of field, bloom, glare, clipping light, motion blur (even on characters like on hands of dirt woman), chromatic aberration, etc. Although these post-effects maybe will be added in some kind of screenshot mode. Alya selfie on the phone camera.
Dof blur
Boom, light glares, clipping light.
I won't add everything, I think these effects are already noticeable.
I just have doubts that this will all work on consoles. But still, but I hope that all this will be in the game because it looks very juicy.
My four take on this. Hair, smoke, details, post-effects.
The work of light and the level of reflections in puddles and glossy surfaces were also amazing, but with hired technologies like PTX this is possible
Hair.
I think many of us have already seen in games the visually correct dynamic behavior of hair relative to the inertia of the character’s movements. (according to the behavior of soft bodies)
But I have never seen a good collision of hair with items of clothing and body. Here you can see how the hair reacts correctly to the body during the animation.
Smoke
Apparently, volumetric are involved here, and it is also dynamic, i.e. This is either a simulation or some kind of complex shader. You can also notice that volumetrics respond correctly to light sources. You can see how the car's headlights illuminate smoke.
Amount of details.
Just look at this, I'm sure it's a pre-made scene, debris on the asphalt, broken glass, liquid, crumpled impact on the guardrail, crumpled barrels (although it's possible that it's is okay because it's part of a local news program, and they need some pre-made scene for that)
Quantity and quality of dirt texture on the skin and on clothes.
Detailing of debris underfoot. You can also notice the potholes, the asphalt in which grass grows in the cracks, the amount of detail is amazing.
Post-effects.
A huge number of cinimatic post-effects are not needed for the game, but they were probably made only for the trailer. Depth of field, bloom, glare, clipping light, motion blur (even on characters like on hands of dirt woman), chromatic aberration, etc. Although these post-effects maybe will be added in some kind of screenshot mode. Alya selfie on the phone camera.
Dof blur
Boom, light glares, clipping light.
I won't add everything, I think these effects are already noticeable.
I just have doubts that this will all work on consoles. But still, but I hope that all this will be in the game because it looks very juicy.
Personally, I liked the realistic picture, good lighting work, сamera backlight effects like bloom, clipping light. Lots of different details, lots of different animals just in this trailer. Realistic faces and overall a realistic picture. I hope this trend of realism will continue in all aspects of the game, especially in physics.
New GTA 6 trailer, what do you think?
I think everyone here has been playing the gta series of games, and here is the trailer of the long awaited new part. Confirmed leaks that the main characters will be a loving couple of gangsters like Bonnie and Clyde, who are operating in a place with references to Vice City.
What do you think?
What do you think?
I understand that, and I'm not even trying to find someone who knows about philosophy and argumentation theory here (edit: i mean not anymore), maybe at least someone who can discuss without emotion, and just try to think about it with a cold head and rationalize their views, whatever they may be.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Can you communicate less.. emotionally?
So that's your business if that's what you decide? Convenient. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Where did I say what a woman should or shouldn't do? Please, let's avoid the strawman arguments...
Do you know the difference between a prescription and a description?
A descriptive statement captures something the way it is. A prescriptive statement details how something should be. I've never once written about what should be in this topic. But I was writing about the way it is.
And that's why you can't provide reasoning. Makes sense. (no)
It's in your mind. The first post says that the topic is made to support a reasoned argument on hot-topic. I don't care what position is being defended, I care about having arguments. I don't mind if my argument is false. I don't have support for the pro-life position. I came up with that argument just to warm up the discussion. I've written that repeatedly. But you are blinded by your rage...
A person who repeats left-liberal talking points accuses me of propaganda. That's interesting.
What kind of propanaganda am I exposed to? I'm really curious to hear the answer.
So that's your business if that's what you decide? Convenient. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
Where did I say what a woman should or shouldn't do? Please, let's avoid the strawman arguments...
Do you know the difference between a prescription and a description?
A descriptive statement captures something the way it is. A prescriptive statement details how something should be. I've never once written about what should be in this topic. But I was writing about the way it is.
And that's why you can't provide reasoning. Makes sense. (no)
It's in your mind. The first post says that the topic is made to support a reasoned argument on hot-topic. I don't care what position is being defended, I care about having arguments. I don't mind if my argument is false. I don't have support for the pro-life position. I came up with that argument just to warm up the discussion. I've written that repeatedly. But you are blinded by your rage...
A person who repeats left-liberal talking points accuses me of propaganda. That's interesting.
What kind of propanaganda am I exposed to? I'm really curious to hear the answer.
What I get is emoticons, insults, unfounded theses. I get everything but reasoning. I don't care if you're pro-choice or pro-life. Give me some rationale. But there's only rage, only emotions.
I did this whole thread as an experiment to see if a reasoned conversation is possible here.
Apparently not... It's disappointing.
That's right, her body, her choice. It's a her choice what to do with her body. And so a human being can't decide what to do with another human being's. Especially if it concerns murder. This is a pro-life argument. So i do not understand why you're in favour of pro-choice. And why you talk in slogans without explaining anything. As if you're not capable of thinking with your own head, but only repeating someone else's agenda.
I could start a discussion, but since it affects you personally and your feelings, I wouldn't want to. But if you could take it apart from yourself, maybe a reasonable discussion could be had.
I didn't say my argument was correct, I just asked you to consider its premises. And I said I didn't have a clear position on the issue. I took a pro-life position to warm up the debate as stated in the first post. Instead, it was a spate of gratuitous insults. It's a shame to see this level of discourse. I expected something better than this.
Unfortunately, everyone here is thinking emotionally instead of rationally.
Unfortunately, everyone here is thinking emotionally instead of rationally.
I agree. Because of their feelings, people come up with mental constructs to assuage their feelings about abortion. And I don't see anything wrong with that if it only serves to help yourself, and doesn't go as spreading ideas to others.
But what does it mean to not take it lightly? I'm in favor of not bringing any feelings into this topic. I realize that's gonna be difficult for a lot of people. And maybe those who can't make it shouldn't discuss it. If we make decisions based on our feelings rather than on rationality. Could that be the problem?
And your argument is insults? Well, that's not surprising from someone who hasn't heard anything about argumentation theory. I brought in a deductive argument instead of describing my feelings and experiences.
And this isa racing games off topic forum. Where people discuss things like music, movies, news, wars, history, philosophy. This question is part of philosophical discourse. From applied ethics. If you can't say anything about it and bring atleast some meaning, then you shouldn't post here, because it's your posts that are out of place here.
As you wish. But only on the basis of these theses of yours, I could start a discussion on this topic, asking clarifying questions to get to the core of your position.
But instead you said, "End of discussion." That's your right. But why not try to have a discussion about it? I am ready to recognize good arguments of the interlocutor if they contradict mine. And if these arguments are stronger than mine, I will have to recognize that his position is stronger and makes more sense.
By the way, I originally held the prochoice position as well. Just because the environment imposed or just because of the zeitgeist. But when I was confronted with a really strong position that was hard to argue with, I just accepted it. And I improved my position.
In my opinion, it's always good to question your positions, even if you believe them to be true. That's the essence of critical thinking, to question your own beliefs in order to improve your views, if you do not do this, it will lead to stagnation, that's why I like reasoned discussions or debates and that's why I don't like when participants of these debates start using sophistry and various rhetorical tricks. Suppose you lost in this debate because the arguments of your interlocutor were stronger. What's wrong with that? Bad and good are just value judgments that essentially mean nothing. What matters is who gained new knowledge? The one who lost the debate and learned new arguments he hadn't thought of before has gained new knowledge. And the winner of the debate has gained nothing. So the real winner is the one who gained something, isn't he? in my opinion, the real winner is the one who has realized something new and based on it can adjust his position. The worst thing you can do in this situation is to end the discussion without starting it.
If you're still not interested just don't reply to this post and the discussion with you on this matter will be over.
If you are in favor of pro-choice, and you stand for it consistently, then you must show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
To reiterate my deductive argument:
T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.
There are four options here:
1. You show that my argument is false based on the fact that one (or more) premises are not true.
2. You advocate frivolous murder of people and that's morally normal for you. (And maybe you're in favor of negative eugenics, because why not?)
3. You show your inconsistency and essentially you have no reasoning to be in favor of pro-choice.
4. You agree with my argument because you can't argue with it and are in favor of pro-life.
I forgot to clarify that I don't care at all what positions anyone holds, what matters is the arguments, i.e. the reasoning behind those positions.
The issue of abortions. Pro-choice vs pro-life argument.
I'm wondering if we can support a reasoned argument on hot-topic as issue of abortions. Unfortunately I have often noticed that when engaging in arguments people tend to use rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies to defend their positions. I don't have a strict position on this issue, but since I know the majority is pro-choice on the abortion issue, then I'll take a pro-life position to warm up the discussion and try to argue it logically.
An important condition for participation in the discussion is not to use sophistry and other rhetorical tricks to defend your position or argue a different position. Straw man arguments, appeals to emotions, to the majority, to the law, to authority are all sophistry, which is not proof of anything. Also ideally do not use inductive arguments cuz they are not proofs. Although I don't expect to see a collection of deductive arguments in favour of pro-choice positions.
As they say you have to start with yourself, and I will formulate my position with a deductive logical argument that comes from a fork (T) - thesis with two options.
T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.
Any logical argument will work if we accept its premises. If you can prove that any of the premises are wrong, then the argument will not work.
I think all the primises are obvious except that the human zygote is a human being. And probably that's the premise that will be argued most often. I'll explain why I took this primis. Any moment when a non-human becomes a human being is arbitrary except for the very beginning - the zygote. Because this is the very moment when the human dna of one person of the mother and another human being of the father merge into one cell and give birth to a new organism. What species does this organism belong to? Homo sapiens - human being. (I will disclaim that I am an agnostic and religious positions on this issue are not important to me)
This moment when two objects (sperm and ovum) become one object (zygote) is the moment that sets all the conditions for the emergence of a new human being. And each of these two objects individually does not possess the full set of genetic code to form a human being. And when they merge, the genetic code of the mother and father is merged and it is from this point that human growth begins. Any subsequent moment is arbitrary. Zygote is just a stage of human development like any other. With each new stage we can acquire some new attributes. From puberty to adulthood, we mature, our brains develop, and we become smarter and more experienced and we're acquiring more and more attributes. It doesn't mean that at any stage a non-human suddenly became human. You can argue and prove it's not true. This could be interesting.
It may be noted that the form of my deductive argument can justify some cases of abortions. For example, in the case of a threat to the life of a woman in labour, cuz it is morally justifiable to murder in self-defence. It all depends on whether murder is morally permissible for you. You can say you don't think frivolous murders is immoral, and then there is no problem with abortion.
An important condition for participation in the discussion is not to use sophistry and other rhetorical tricks to defend your position or argue a different position. Straw man arguments, appeals to emotions, to the majority, to the law, to authority are all sophistry, which is not proof of anything. Also ideally do not use inductive arguments cuz they are not proofs. Although I don't expect to see a collection of deductive arguments in favour of pro-choice positions.
As they say you have to start with yourself, and I will formulate my position with a deductive logical argument that comes from a fork (T) - thesis with two options.
T. If it is immoral for you to murder a human being, then abortion is immoral.
If it is morally normal for you to murder a human being, then abortion is not immoral.
P1. Murder - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
P2. A human zygote (and then blastocyst, fuetus, embryo, infant and any stage of the human being) is a human being (Homo sapiens)
P3. Abortion - premeditated killing of human being by another human being.
C. Abortion is murder.
Any logical argument will work if we accept its premises. If you can prove that any of the premises are wrong, then the argument will not work.
I think all the primises are obvious except that the human zygote is a human being. And probably that's the premise that will be argued most often. I'll explain why I took this primis. Any moment when a non-human becomes a human being is arbitrary except for the very beginning - the zygote. Because this is the very moment when the human dna of one person of the mother and another human being of the father merge into one cell and give birth to a new organism. What species does this organism belong to? Homo sapiens - human being. (I will disclaim that I am an agnostic and religious positions on this issue are not important to me)
This moment when two objects (sperm and ovum) become one object (zygote) is the moment that sets all the conditions for the emergence of a new human being. And each of these two objects individually does not possess the full set of genetic code to form a human being. And when they merge, the genetic code of the mother and father is merged and it is from this point that human growth begins. Any subsequent moment is arbitrary. Zygote is just a stage of human development like any other. With each new stage we can acquire some new attributes. From puberty to adulthood, we mature, our brains develop, and we become smarter and more experienced and we're acquiring more and more attributes. It doesn't mean that at any stage a non-human suddenly became human. You can argue and prove it's not true. This could be interesting.
It may be noted that the form of my deductive argument can justify some cases of abortions. For example, in the case of a threat to the life of a woman in labour, cuz it is morally justifiable to murder in self-defence. It all depends on whether murder is morally permissible for you. You can say you don't think frivolous murders is immoral, and then there is no problem with abortion.
Are you sure? According to the tests here, the bots are going faster now.
Yes I agree, this would be a big help when creating lays.
Eric recently said he'd be giving some new screenshots soon.
FIA Esports Survey
A survey from the FIA asking what role e-sports plays in sim racing and what role you play in it. Also in which racing simulators you play more and which racing simulator you want to see in e-sports competitions (I think you know the answer to that one
)
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Z5RSMZG
)https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Z5RSMZG
I don't know much about it but I have crazy idea. I'm not entirely sure if this will work, but if it is, it's a solution to the problem.
It requires two conditions.
1. If the author of the LFSLazy wants its functionality to be part of the game
2. If the developers want the LFSLazy functionality to be part of the game. (I bet the players clearly want to)
Then the author of LFSLazy puts his code on github or something under free access CC0, or GNU or whichever is better (not sure) And then Scawen can integrate it into the game.
As a result, no one's rights are violated and players have the desired functionality. Everybody's happier, right?
But I'm not sure how it would work on part when code putting it out publicly wouldn't it violate the LFS license? And is there any possibility to pass only those parts that the author of LFSLazy added in the code. And if its not, maybe, only members of the repository can see the code, although it will not be a free license anymore.
In general, it is necessary to transfer the code without violating anyone's rights. Is there a solution to this?
It requires two conditions.
1. If the author of the LFSLazy wants its functionality to be part of the game
2. If the developers want the LFSLazy functionality to be part of the game. (I bet the players clearly want to)
Then the author of LFSLazy puts his code on github or something under free access CC0, or GNU or whichever is better (not sure) And then Scawen can integrate it into the game.
As a result, no one's rights are violated and players have the desired functionality. Everybody's happier, right?
But I'm not sure how it would work on part when code putting it out publicly wouldn't it violate the LFS license? And is there any possibility to pass only those parts that the author of LFSLazy added in the code. And if its not, maybe, only members of the repository can see the code, although it will not be a free license anymore.
In general, it is necessary to transfer the code without violating anyone's rights. Is there a solution to this?
I agree that xrg and xrt need to be updated, and that goes for every other car except the rb4. but Eric is working on Tracks right now.
In theory is it possible to make your mod under LFS Vehicle License, and then Eric can use that mod as an update for LFS official vehicle so he doesn't have to spend his time on modeling and texturing?
In theory is it possible to make your mod under LFS Vehicle License, and then Eric can use that mod as an update for LFS official vehicle so he doesn't have to spend his time on modeling and texturing?
Yes, it dilutes the topic and is something that needs to be avoided. But I didn't bring in philosophy, logic and Occam's razor into this thread. Avraham needed that to discuss global warming for some reason. And all I have done each time is clearly show that he doesn't understand anything about the above topics. And then I would get accusations that I was going off topic or engaging in sophistry. It's a convenient position, but how if I wasn't the one who introduced these topics here?
I don't think we should introduce topics that don't contribute to the global warming discussion, especially if you don't understand anything about them.
Now there's a good topic about nuclear power and environmental pollution. Saying we should not litter and segregate trash are pretty trivial things. But still not in my country and many others. So it's still a problem.
I won't pretend to be an expert in nuclear and thermonuclear power field, because I don't understand much about it.
But we know from history that there are some risks associated with nuclear power plant accidents. They are less danger of such incidents now with the increase in safety, but I think its are non-zero probability that something bad might happen again. And there is splent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants, as far as I know it's stored in special pools that are quite safe. So, as long as there are no accidents, nuclear power plants are really the best sources of electricity in terms of ecology and efficiency. When it comes to environmentally friendly sources, that have no emissions there are we still have solar energy, wind and hydro energy. And I don't think we need to forget about them.
I can't say much about thermonuclear reactors, and as far as I know they don't exist as practical working models. They still exist as experimental prototypes. So there's not much to say for now. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Reason : Spelling fixed
And of course, you won't provide any proof of what you say.
I didn't think you were on so massive copium...that because I beat you in an argument, you're gonna follow me around the forums to try to get at me. It's pathetic.
But I don't care about you. So how about you just accept the situation and move on?
I think it's just a on and off switch.
Automatic modes can be made in LFS Editor optionally with a switch between the first and second option. But not both at the same time. Because the first automatic mode simulates electric lighting. And the second one simulates luminous paint like on dashes on old cars.
Edit: Although there are probably cars with dashes that have luminous paint and an electric lighting at the same time, but it still for LFS Editor.
Last edited by Aleksandr_124rus, .
Oh, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
I just thought so because there was a link from the test patch thread.
I just thought so because there was a link from the test patch thread.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG