Graphics are Great WTF are people saying rf 1 ?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Sean_S36, Feb 4, 2012.

  1. Jameswesty

    Jameswesty Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    14
    Sure , I was just talking outside of general bugs that are to be accepted as beta issues.

    You also have to keep in mind that There will always be a degree of abstraction/artistic license until pc's are more powerful and screens have better contrast and colour depth.

    Eyes also react different when looking at a screen than they do when looking at real life situation this is one of the reasons I hate this modern trend to go crazy with HDR in games. Granted it makes screen shots look better and on the face of it can make a game look nicer but it can be a big strain on your eyes when playing.
     
  2. jtbo

    jtbo Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    48
    Luckily for me graphics are not much, sure I appreciate things that are pretty, but I would take proper sim with single color box cars any time over something that looks like Forza and drives like Outrun (original 2D if you remember that or any 2D driving game).

    I think graphics are enough good, also I think that rF1 graphics are enough good, so perhaps my enough good is not much of good in graphics, but I'm old and modern trends are bling bling nothing else matters, so maybe I'm already obsolete and need to be replaced with newer version :D
     
  3. CdnRacer

    CdnRacer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    31
    Graphics are an opinion. Just because someone like Maxym will never be happy unless he is given something for free doesn't mean there are others who don't like it.
     
  4. Guineapiggy

    Guineapiggy Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the contrary, the realism of graphics is an observable fact unlike many things. I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate this title already but this is a game that could definitely look a lot better.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2012
  5. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    @CdnRacer
    I'm not talking about what I like or someone must like. It is not about if some one likes manga or ray-tracing, more coloured or washed one.

    Do you think that in real life shadows goes darker when lit by additional light source? Don't think so. I consider it as bug but I'm also talking about simulate phenomena from real world in gfx area. For example, IRL amount of reflection depends on angle between object and spectator. Yeah... it is Fresnel's rule. Simply to achieve, but giving a lot of realims. Unfortunately ignored by ISI devs with unknown reason (since well known for ages, implemented in most modern games, affecting almost none of system performance). Well, there are even shaders for rF1 which generate reflections using Fresnel rule. True - made by modders. But why not to add this to rF2 by default?


    So again, it is not question of taste. It is how it works in real life. Every eye, even if reacts on things differently, do see this effect. And there is no reason to skip this as well as few other.


    Point us to statement which provs that. Otherwise you are just common liar.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2012
  6. K Szczech

    K Szczech Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    45
    Exactly.
    You can add tons of postprocessing, antialiasing, create high-poly models and high-res textures, tewak lighting, use DX10, DX11, DX12, DX20...
    Nothing will help if glass doesn't look like glass, plastic doesn't look like plastic and carpaint doesn't look like carpaint.
    You can only use tons of bloom and blur to cover that up. Obviously that would not be a step towards realism (step outside and see if everything's blurry ald bloomy ;) ).


    Here's what in my opinion adds the most to realism of scene (assuming modelling and texturing is decent)
    1. Proper lighting with correct light levels and colors
    2. Shadows
    3. Material properties
    4. Advanced lighting techniques like ambient occlusion (but not SSAO, God forbid! ;) ), global illumination, etc.
    5. HDR and good tone mapping
    6. Realtime reflections
    7. Advanced material properties - subsurface scattering, refraction, etc.

    There is an important improvement in rFactor 2 in #1, #2, #5 and #6.

    Unfortunately #3 didn't change since rFactor 1, and that's one of the three most important aspects of graphics. This is the area I've been working on in rFactor with my Shader Pack and if nothing changes I will have to develop another shader pack for rFactor 2, so modders can go bananas with their artwork ;)

    So yeah, saying that there is no improvement since rF1, asvell as saying that graphics in rF2 is great are both major simplifiactions.
    Things have definitely changed for better, but they're not at the level I would call good.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2012
  7. jubuttib

    jubuttib Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    7
    BTW and FWIW, I sometimes feel like the ISI is going for a more "human eye" type of visual interpretation, whereas SMS is clearly going the "photorealistic" route. My images my eyes see and transfer to my brains aren't "photorealistic". For me this tends to translate to pCARS looking much better in still shots and videos, but when actually playing I feel more "there" at Spa in rF2, pCARS partly seems to shout at my brains, "You are looking at this through a camera".

    This is of course a personal thing, and both titles being very much under development still I'm not going to make any far reaching conclusions just yet. =)
     
  8. FONismo

    FONismo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    54
    Thats a very good point and exactly how i feel with rF2. When driving the 60's F1's i feel alot more immersed for some reason than i do in pCARS. As you say though, pCARS is something else graphically but i have i spot for rF2's graphics. The human eye factor is a very good point
     
  9. K Szczech

    K Szczech Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    45
    I don't think it's like that.

    Whatever you do, there is only one world with only one optical laws. The only proper way is to reconstruct these optical laws as best as possible within limitations of realtime rendering.
    So in terms of lighting, material properties, etc. there is no room for being subjective.

    The only subjective thing is how this rendered world will be displayed on screen - some people will prefer higher contrast, some will prefer brighter image, some will prefer linear color space, while others will prefer tone mapping.

    Of course even within the scope of recreating real world there will be different opinions - some people will prefer things, for example, more shiny, while others will dislike that. This kind of preference has actually nothing to do with realism.
    It's like with physics - some people like one mod, some like another, but this has nothing to do with realism of these mods. If all mods were 100% realistic, there would still be people who would like them, and people who would dislike them.

    This is a good comparison actually. Graphics has many aspects. Just as you cannot judge physics by just FFB, you cannot judge graphics by just one aspect. Sometimes one aspect is important to someone. For example - overall light level and contrast may be better in some game and this way it will appear more "eye-friendly" to someone, but that doesn't mean that graphics as a whole is better.
     
  10. Satangoss

    Satangoss Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    7
    Agreed.

    Some shaders are outdated. There's still a "plastic" looking on the car bodies.

    But, still...Graphics are not fantastic... but it's quite ok for a racing simulator. Maybe it was not good enough for a 1st person game, but once you're racing through the landscape at 150 kph+, the visual effect is fair enough.
     
  11. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    Maybe for you it is enough. For others not.
    But probably all we want to do/see nice screenshots, videos etc. What then?

    At the end there is one true - rF2 as 2012 game has dated gfx you cannot change it even if you doesn't care about gfx.
     
  12. CdnRacer

    CdnRacer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    31

    That pretty much sums it up. No need to keep spamming that you don't like the graphics. Some like them and some don't. If you're so hell bent on making your point maybe you should start a poll asking if the forum users like the graphics or not. :p
     
  13. deak1944

    deak1944 Guest

    I have to agree with jubuttib. rFactor is just more intense to me. With a 25 deg FOV I don't get a good sense of speed with pCARS.The graphics are lovely but only when not moving. There is something about visual movement in rFactor 2 that pulls me right in and I don't know how to describe it. But every time it starts to rain at Spa I smell rain!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2012
  14. Satangoss

    Satangoss Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    7
    That's the why I'm speaking for myself, I'm not speaking on behalf of all comunity.

    I'd like to see better gfx as well, but the question is: is it worth try to cosmetic an overcome engine or should they spend their times on the driving and racing programming themselves?

    ISI probably has this answer. I'd not bother trying to squeeze the last drop of the graphics engine if it hurts the other simulator develpoments. But, again, it's only my humble opinion.
     
  15. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    Yep, I noticed that community is highly pleasured with with 2 polygons signed as "new track WIP".
    Lets do a poll for all computer players asking if they like physics more from rf or NFS ;) You can also ask for gfx.

    As I said it is not matter of taste. it is about correct approach which costs quite nothing. I believe you would like correct rendered graphics. It must not looks like NFS. but to understand this, you should open you mind a bit more. No offence.
     
  16. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    Believe me, it is worth it.
     
  17. jubuttib

    jubuttib Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    934
    Likes Received:
    7
    Very good points. On the "Whatever you do, there is only one world with only one optical laws" point, it is very true of course, but there's still a huge difference in how human eyes process the light coming into your eyes (and how the brain processes it further) and how a camera reacts to them. Anyone who's ever shown a picture to someone and said "It doesn't really show up well on camera, but..." knows what I'm talking about. =)

    This mainly affects the many different kinds of post processing effects and lighting techniques (and eyes, even reflections look different on camera than in my eyes, especially if polarization is somehow involved) used to create the image, and what sort of effect they're tuned to produce. If they're built to imitate the behavior of the human eye the result will be different than if they were built to imitate film and different still if they were built to imitate a digital sensor.

    But yeah, I think we can all accept that graphics aren't an easy nor a simple subject. =)
     
  18. Jani Kankaanpää

    Jani Kankaanpää Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    1
    Overall graphics is good but other cars looks blurred when they are not very close to you.
     
  19. CdnRacer

    CdnRacer Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    31


    No offense taken.


    Honestly I don't like the graphics of the environment in shift or c.a.r.s. The cockpit graphics are nice though.

    AC from Kunos is looking excellent but only in screen shots so who knows. I LOVE the look of Dirt3 but some hate it.

    I don't really care if the shaders or polys or whatever are "right". I want something that gives me some immersion and I'm getting that with rF2. On my system I'm not having any AA issues but if someone was then I can understand why they wouldn't be happy.


    I don't make big deals over every little detail either. Lots complained about the graphical tire flex saying it was too much. Yeah it is I think but I would rather have that than none at all.
     
  20. jtbo

    jtbo Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    48
    I just remember something, there was article in local computer/gaming magazine around time X-Wing vs TIE-fighter game came about.
    they did compare it's graphics to Star Wars movie graphics and from my memory concluded that in few years time games look as good as movies. That was at 1997 at time when 3D cards started to come and conquer gaming. 3dfx Voodoo was launched at 1996, just year before and by 1997 not even nearly all machines were 3D accelerated.

    I stumbled to this some time ago:
    http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/08/02/can-games-look-real-today.aspx

    Sounds like too good to be true?
     

Share This Page