rF1 didn't have it. Other solutions have a canned effect I believe rather than what I'd call a living one. I'm talking about something laser scanned tracks don't have, and in my opinion these are way more valuable. For me the 'change' models are the most important aspects of rF2. Whether they will be the most important thing for the average user? No idea. Three main things constantly change in any real race: Weather, Tires and the track surface. rFactor 2 has a model for each of those and I believe this is the first time they've ever been combined and been directly affected by the user. They all work together, too. The track surface (I believe the devs call it "real road") is the one I showed in the time lapse. It isn't simple a graphical effect, it's that you can actually gain an advantage by adjusting your line or using the areas of the track affected by where the people in the race have driven. What I mean is that the entire race feels like it's a living thing. What I liked about laser scanning was the little bumps and the fact that it didn't feel like the track was produced in a sterile environment devoid of bumps and even though rF2 tracks don't feel like that, I don't feel I even need it anymore. They've done a great job on the track surface in rF2 in terms of bumps and all those little nuances, but it's these changing things (weather, track, tires) in rF2 which have replaced this feeling for me.
Thanks, but I didn't mean "real track" = how it is in real world and laser scanned tracks. I was asking about that new rF 2 surface "feature" that ISI is calling "Real Track" (yeah, or "Real Road"). Is it only "just" about weather and grip effects (but the basics remained the same) or is it also about completly different way of creating track surface (so, a comparison to rF 1 would show the difference) with sort of a physical structure of the surface, that has influence on physical tyre wear and damage, heating and so on.
But IMO this is pretty crucial. It's also why many iRacers can do hours every day in the same car (and the same track all week) without getting bored. Driving at the limit of the tyres needs quick steering corrections for those bumps. And whereas most drivers tend to stay away from the scary region, the fastest drivers live there and are catching the car regularly - just early, so it doesn't look like it. Which is also what we see in RL with top drivers - busy hands - but you don't see it in the same way in most sims. The 'change' effects are a nice add on but no replacement IMO for a realistic 'on the limit' feel. This is rather disappointing news particularly if you've just given iRacing the elbow and were hoping for something a bit similar. I don't actually understand why you need laser scanning to generate bumps? Accurate bumps yes, but not just bumps for interest's sake. But actually, now I think of it, I found the latest NetKarPro did seem pretty realistic on the limit. If anything my steering inputs looked more RL-like than in iRacing. But I suppose that's NetKar's tyre model.
Tim didn't say the tracks will be as flat as a pancake . He just didn't mention them, and went on to say that incredibly accurate bumps are not THAT important to him anymore, personally. But that doesn't mean that bumps have been ditched in favour of the entire 'change' aspect. There's no reason why they can't coexist, although more complex bumps will naturally complicate the physics calculations (which also need to be done for RealRoad and the new tyre model, so physics-wise it definitely looks intense under the bonnet even without any bumps at all). Anyway, this thread is mainly about laser scanning, with some people wanting ultimate 1mm accuracy because, in their respected opinion, that's the most important factor to define a surface that feels alive. I believe that's the underlying point Tim was trying to make .
I've come to understand that laser scanning a track isn't necessary. I've always said that I'll never drive on any of these real tracks so what do I need this mm accuracy, even though it does sound cool. The fact that these tracks are accurate down to the mm is debatable. If the track is done well with lots of work put into the accuracy it can still show the little intricacies and capture the character of the track. To me that's the key.
Yup. They're just not actually that important to me anymore. Tracks can feel totally alive with or without them now in my opinion. Yeah that is what I believe now, too. As I said you can't go straight from ANY simulation (even one the F1 teams might use) and step into the real thing and expect the same - ever. So even if you are using a track for testing before you go to the real thing, are you really any worse off if it's made from GPS versus Lasers? Of course not. You still have to adapt. Infact it could be argued that having too much belief in the accuracy of a laser scanned track could do more harm than good... Assuming it'll stick, etc.
the 3 things highlighted by Tim, for me, indicate a massive leap forward in realism without the need for laser scanning. Personally the one main thing I look for in a track is "is it fun to drive on", I personally dont care if its flat or lasered as long as I enjoy driving it. With the Real Road technology coming in rF2 it will just push me personally to be a better driver because of the changing conditions, driving round and round and only having tire wear to worry about (rF, iRacing) does get abit tedious at times. Overtaking offline in the Marbles is gonna be an awesome experience I'm sure
Remember not all people are like you. There are some which wants to brings simulation close as possible to real thing. And 'playability' is not most important thing in simracing for them. I would like to see rF2 beaing able to support some a complexity of a road surface which is created from some reference data (ie from point cloud). I mean some way to draw 3d scene with acceptable complexity and smal invisible bumps utilized only by physics engine. (or something like this). It makes possible to create some superb-accurate tracks by modders with all advantages of technology precision. best regards
Yes, that's the way I'm looking at it. You obviously don't need mm accuracy, as has been said, changing conditions: tyres, rubbering-in, environmental etc. would swamp the effect. But there are surface details at particular turns in iRacing that have to be dealt with. If you could just drive through those sections as though they were flat, then it wouldn't be representing the character and the challenge of that track. And I'm pretty sure I've seen RL drivers dealing with some of the same issues in the same places. If you're going to 'name that track' then I think it needs more than just the right number of turns in the right order, or else it might as well be an LFS creation. It does feel very odd to me driving on a flat track now. More important though is there's a lot less to do and it holds interest for less time.
Me too. I said the bumps ARE there, but said they are not important to me at all anymore as the aspect of feeling that I felt bumps were needed for has been replaced by other effects anyway.
First of all, because it's illegal. Second - it's illegal and third... did I mentioned, that's illegal?
And because sim must be able to utilize underlaid data not only geometry like rF1 does. In case of iR, track surface geometry is very flat. All bumps are stored in additional data file.
how is it illegal to copy a track that is copyed from a track an illegal or not they are all avalible for rf1 an to use them is ok i cant say the same for the simed tool that converts all cars an tracks from any sim to any sim an has support for f12010, gta tracks are converted an you can get this on rfactor central an they are very strict on mods i dont think they would have some thing illegal there
No, you can't use them. Not legally at least, becase both titles are copyrighted, You have to have a written permission from the authors to use them (read the terms of use for both titles you have mentioned). Also, there is a difference when you have something illegal for your private use and no one will run after you because of that, and when a company wanting to put such illegal converted content into their product and distribute it as legal (sell it or not - doesn't matter). ISI can make all the content by themself, from scratch or buy a licence to use already existing stuff. In my opinion, there are no other options available to them.
I"m pretty sure he means if ISI were to get permission. Hell would freeze over before iR gave anybody else permission to use their tracks though...lol.
The tool isn't illegal but converting someone elses track without their permission is. FIRST/iR sued a few guys a couple of years ago just for tweaking their tracks.