LiDAR circuit models

Well, there are several levels of accuracy! at this point i agree with you.
But, laserscanned version give you lot of reference data for give you possibility to build a "good" (most?) accurate track, probably lot of reference data more compared to that you can take from classic CAD files.
We're talking about levels of accuracy, we can't have reality in our simulations! for now, who knows in future...

 

Yeah that's probably the way I should have put it. LOL I guess I like to write really long posts about things I could have put in a single sentence.

We do offer laser scanning and track building as a service, but obviously haven't done it for retail as we'd never expect retail customers to be able cover the costs. Private customers are able to. As I said in a previous post, we'd be happy to do it, but someone has to pay and I believe most wouldn't want to sacrifice the money for the potential benefit.

 

Yes, i can understand your point. Sadly laserscanning technology is really expensive

If i'll win lottery i'll give you enough money for do some laserscanned tracks for rF2! lol

 

Can you reveal the order of magnitude of these figures ? Would the business model necessarily need to be based on subscription ?

I have not been able to find any article related to the economics of laser-scanning, if anyone knows...

 

Costs for laserscanning operations are around 8-12k euros for an average track, around 50k for big tracks like the Nordschleife. Infos from WMD forums. Didn't know was SO expensive...

 

I can't give a hugely detailed answer, sorry.

With stationary scanning you're probably going to have to make back 6-figures for even the smallest oval (although costs won't exactly double for double the track length, they'll be a lot less than that). Costs include the cost of equipment, transport, staff wages, hotels, food and that is just to get the scan data, not to build the track from it (artists, modellers, etc). Plus, if it rains you can't scan and you extend the bills and sometimes you can only scan at night, when the track isn't in-use. You might even need to pay a local police force depending upon where you are scanning for sitting in their cars... Equipment costs are huge too. Just the maintenance plan for a stationary scanner is over $25,000.

As for how you pay for that... Well no, you wouldn't have to go with a subscription, but you'd need to be pretty confident of making your money back before you contacted a track to scan it... Depending upon numbers of expected customers, you could then ask a flat fee for the track, but still... Who would expect to pay hundreds of dollars for a track?

It's worth noting that retail customers would expect more graphical detail than private ones, so those costs could be less.

 

That probably doesn't include construction costs after scanning, and is probably not stationary scanning, IMHO.

 

I'd buy a track for 20-25 euros but..for hundreds of dollars well...is a bit too much!
For the Nordschleife i offer 50 euros!

 

Maybe would it be worth proposing some kind of survey to the purchasers of rfactor2 ?
You may then be able to figure out how many people are interested in laser-scanned tracks, and how much they would be ready to invest. Just sayin'

 

I've payed extra for laser scanned tracks and after reading all of this thread I've made up my mind that it isn't worth the extra costs. I for one would not pay extra. There is nothing stopping another company doing a laser scanned track for rF2 if one chooses to. I doubt that will ever happen but it's a possibility.

 

I had the opportunity to play laser scanned tracks in a reactive motion simulator (able to simulate quick changes in g-forces one can feel on detailed track surface). iRacing first, then rFactor with the two laser scanned tracks available.

iRacing felt very detailed, and every big bump required corresponding steering to keep the car in line. But rFactor was different (and the simulator setup was the same) and felt almost flat, with only few big bumps from time to time.
I could feel kerbs vibration precisely, but the track felt very flat most of the time (simulator was moving with cornering forces, but was not shaking like if track was very flat) excepted few areas which suddenly had many huge bumps.

I wonder why it is like that. Does it mean that it is currently impossible to store as much details in an rFactor track as in iRacing, or that the physics engine does not answer to tiny, high frequency bumps?
Or maybe it is because these two tracks are really very flat compared to tracks in iRacing?

 

well I guess that depends on what the two tracks were and who made them, the way the rig was set up for each sim would have a bearing too, as would the vehicle model used. All of these things will make a difference to what you feel, one thing I can assure you of is that rFactor can handle much more than most people would give it credit for.

 

It isn't surprised. Just think about features provided by iR and rF
- iR uses underlay data (based on LS ones) which are not 3d modeled but used for physics engine. That's why you can feel small bumps etc.
- rF can use geometry only + some faked, sinus based bump-waves to generate FF sensations. With this engine you cannot represent details of track surface. Of course it is possible to generate bumps from point cloud as 3d model but... I guess your rig will knee down while playing this.

 

It is due to a) the tracks (either the real one not bumpy, or the modder not adding the bumps), b) the motion scanning versus stationary scanning and lesser detail on the motion scan data.

 

rfatctor can handle a lot more polys than people think, and if used in conjunction with "fake" bumps/sine waves can also give a very realistic feel too, the fact that most tracks do not use either of these things fully is more down to the modders more than any fault with the ISI engine.
I have searched long and hard to find any stated facts or figures relating to the amount of detail in the data used by iRacing tracks and apart from the PR blurbs that are pretty vague and the wild assumptions made by many people I can find nothing, looking through my iRacing folders I found that, as an example, the entire Brands Hatch folder is 105mb, having no prior knowledge of how iracing does things I have to assume that this includes all the textures, the visible surface and objects and all of the "invisible" track data, that doesn't seem a very large file to hold the amount of surface data that some people are claiming exists in iRacing tracks, this makes me wonder even more how much is fact and how much is just assumed.
If anyone can point me to a source of factual information on the subject then please do as I have a genuine interest in the subject and would love to know.

 

Laser scanned tracks are the best ever. Everything else is junk. rF, netkar pro, simbin, LFS and ASR are all arcade crap. I'm going to go and pay $15 per track and use a subscription model with no offline mode because a laser scanned track is just that important to me. rF2 will be junk too because it won't have laser scanned tracks.

 

And what if results of survey will show that 10000 users is interested in paying for laser scanned track and when track is done only 200 users will actually buy it?
People say a lot of things and a day later they change their mind. Basing such big expense on results of survey would be just too risky.

 

yes, i agree with you