Yep, i understand your point of view. But if you dont like rf2 just stop playing and support it. Its easy.
From a scientific point of view, and as someone who has worked in aviation and as a part of that been a Meterological Observer, I've got to say the sky is pretty disappointing. To me it seems as if there is ONLY one 'layer' of cloud at around 10,000ft, making it 'Alto' type cloud. This seems to be the case at all times in all scenarios of cloud and rain. It seems we're restricted to Alto-Cumulus, and Alto-Stratus cloud. Further to this the 'cloud-layer' itself is very thin. Looking at it I'd say it's only 500ft thick maybe even thinner, and this poses a big problem... These types of cloud don't produce rain!!! The problem here is how far do you go in wanting to simulate weather? You'd need a supercomputer just to calculate and produce dynamic volumetric cloud types and formations accurately so that option is off the table. What could work would be to have 3 layers - 'low cloud layer', 'mid cloud layer', and 'high cloud layer': Low Cloud Layer: Full overcast and reduce visibility for when it's raining. Smaller Cumulus clouds for when it's not - defined by the current presets. Mid Cloud Layer: Not needed when it's raining (obscured by low cloud). Partial cloud amounts again depending on current presets. High Cloud Layer: Not needed when raining. Some small Cirrus clouds when lowest cloud preset is selected. I can't see how this would be any more taxing on performance than what we have now. Maybe a little more work for the art department. Anyway, way off topic here! Back onto Nords. Release? Christmas time? I hope I'm proved wrong in the next few days!
I don't stop....I've just said rF2 with ACC graphics could be awesome...And like everybody here I wait for the Nordschleife track....I buy only track in rF2...the biggest missing content.
In many ways rf2 graphics are better than ue4 graphics, it would make sense to look up to iR the way it is polished, or GTS the way it is poweful and realistic (visually). Marcel said in RD interview that rf2 graphics are supposed to reflect that it is a sim, that means simulation applies to visuals too, so ue4 just does not fit that. @dylbie As it was said in simracing expo it should be expected any minute now. But I guess from what I saw that it is at least a month more to wait. P.S. better sky would be so awesome, and clouds setting shadows ! But thats probably too much to dream, and then having a rain in particular locations of the circuit, and other parts dry ! Oh dreams are sweet
I I've posted in the Raceroom forum 'raceroom is ugly', on the iRacing forum 'iRacing is ugly'.... in each forum they've defended their favorite game...and said it's better than the others title And no rF2 is not even close to the ACC graphics immersion...it's the fanboys who argue rf2 is more beauty .... I can understand that the rF2 fan will defend his baby....look on the Dirt rally 2 or ACC forum how I defend my babies... And Marcel has said in 2017 the UI is close to the release....You see how Marcel can be wrong sometimes ...Judge by yourself....for me rF2 is not the more beauty....ACC is my new graphic standard....
10year old detected ^ When fanboys defend something they really just make things worse. As much as I have spent time in rf2 community, I saw that fans here suffers least from the fanboy complex. Most people here realizes or at least suspect what are advantages and disadvantages of rF2, knows when accept different opinions, but also know how to disagree. There are several reasons. rF2 doesn't have hundreds of thousands users, so naturally there are less idiots. rF2 is very intelligent sim, and it attracts intelligent people more than simple gamers. Developers are tolerant and doesn't ban out every critic.
the children are known for telling the truth....and the rF2 fan is known to not liking critics about the graphics...with always the same talk, it's a simulation, you don't have the time to look at the trees, it's like the reality.....intelligent ? not really...but funny, yes ! the rF2 players are fun ! Comparing ACC graphics with rF2 is unfair...ACC is from 2019 with all the last tech...and of course rF2 is uglier.... But Raceroom which is from the same era (2013)....Raceroom is very beauty....
hahahaha how funny are you, I don't know what you're doing here wasting your time if this is bullshit ?, hahahaha ah it's just a troll?...
Now we're talking, not about seeing Mars or the polar star but REAL WEATHER SIMULATION on what matters...
Hey @Marcel Offermans , I'm not 100% sure because I do not understand spoken English very well, but I'm pretty sure that during Simexpo 2018, S397 said that the clouds would be improved (I do not remember if delays had been mentioned). Marcel, can you give us information about this ? Maybe I misunderstood ?? Thank you!
I'm actually a little disappointed with ACC's graphics. It's ok but not blown away. I didn't like rF2 when I first tried it around the time of AC's release, out right hated iRacing all around but today's rF2 and iRacing have improved a lot. iRacing has clearest VR and polished physics are very good, leaving AC and even ACC feeling a bit dated. rF2's new DLC and DX11 updates look great, which works nice with their well tuned physics. Very much looking forward to rF2's official Nordschleife and any new cars. The AC fanboys called out PCars for incomplete sim when they did PC2 but I think AC's physics were left unfinished as well.
A sim can look as good as it can, but all this is in vain when it lacks fidelity. I would argue that PC2 still wipes the floor when it comes to the sheer amount of environmental effects while offering great framerates and smoothness with proper support for any kind of visual peripherie. But as we all know it lacks alot in the driving departement and to say that the game is still full of bugs would be an understatement. I play all of the sims bar Raceroom wich I have played in the past and I have no issues to see and accept where each sim excells and where it fails. For some reason I am still here playing rF2 as many other people because it just offers something that you won't get anywhere else. If ACC is the best possible immersive experience, then enjoy it. I for one would like to be able to enjoy it, but the performance is horrendous and the UI and MP lobby are as much a mess as the rF2 UI, if not worse. ACC is so good that even Kunos thinks about getting rid of UE4 for their next project. So if possible, it would be nice to get back on topic and not read how great ACC is in every threat here in the forum, because looking at the player counts it's not the best thing since sliced bread.
That's why I never drive Circuit Giles Villeneuve, until there are actual groundhogs it is not legitimate.
Your points are great but you need a paragraph break every now and then (people have ADD these days).
