I've not used rF2 since january due to renovation and moving. Then I had a 5879 1 Gb card. Yesterday I installed new build 90 and updated to 12.6 beta drivers for my new 7970. Conclusion: The game seems to run worse now with better hardware than it did in january (same medium settings, all reflections off, no HDR, no sun oclusion, no raindrops etc.). The game stutters no matter what FPS, and thats for a game that looks worse than Richard Burns Rally on my system, and thats an 8 year old sim. No AA settings seems to work, right now I run 2x SSAA in CCC (no in-game AA) and I have loads of jaggies. I actually dont care that much about eyecandy but right now its neither pretty nor smooth. I have moved from 3 to 5 screens but non of my other sims have taken noticable hit from this My system: i5 760 @ 3.8 ASUS HD7970 DC2T 8 gb ram win 7 64 5 screens (6800x1024) Please comment!
http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/1396-Downloads?p=47806&viewfull=1#post47806 There you go, have fun reading. No need to be that negative. Much has happened since january. The beta is still in development so not one person is saying the current performance of rF2 will be the same in the final build
It may be worth spending half an hour and doing a clean install. I decided to take the time to do it yesterday, I saved my package folder but uninstalled rfactor2 and deleted the rfactor2 folder in my documents. After installing build 90 from fresh and then adding the content one by one I now have a more stable rfactor2 with much improved graphics (my mirrors now work) and stable framerates of 60fps on triple screens using multiview. At each update it has got better and better in terms of framerates so I would keep trying as once I finally got all my settings right and it finally ran at 60fps it was a joy to use and actually get to the racing.
1) 6800x1024 is a very huge resolution. 2) Dont forget that there is a very complex physics engine running in the background which makes a rbr comparison a bit useless. Lets try to be constructive, do some benchmarks and comparison between b85 and b90, old and new drivers and post your results here. I lost fps through the latest builds, too (5970). I cant use my native resolution of 2560*1600 here, too. 3) rF2 is WIP / beta, i bet the graphics-devs have some tweaks in the pipeline. Btw: In those high resolutions you should propably get rid of "Supersampling Anti Aliasing", i know rf1(2) flickers a lot without SSAA, but it might be too much for that resolution and your card could run out of memory.
Excuse the harshe tone in my post but I expected more from 6 month of development. As I stated above, NO AA setting helps, same stutter without. As for "complex physics engine" my CPU is hardly sweating so unless the physics is run by GPU I don't understand why this should impact performance? Admittedly 6800x1024 is a lot but I get 150+ fps in iRacing with pretty high settings, same with nKp wich imo is the physics benchmark atm. RBR's physics are also still concidered to be among the best (if not the best). Of course tarmac tyre models are more complex with heat and such but the comparison is not "useless". Ok lets be constructive; I REALLY want this sim to work, but for me it doesn't at the moment. It might be an amd/ati issue, however its a big one! Lets hope you're right and the devs get all this sorted before launch!
I very much doubt physics of rf2 are that cpu hungry. Look at GPL. Its pretty realistic and could be run on a pentium 1. If there was no 3D, the physics engine itself could be probably run on a 486 30MHz. I guess it doesnt really consume much more cpu than rf1; its all about graphics that require both good Gpu and cpu.
GPL was great sim. But comparing simulation abilities to nowadays sims is quite off. GPL doesn't simulate a lot of things, for example aero. it's not because there were no enough knowledge (maybe a bit related) but because it should work in available hw configs. It is really stone-age comparing to rF2 or iRacing.
But I still don't believe rf2 physics needs so much cpu. Its just a bunch of few thousands of numbers. In every other sim, 90% of hw requirements are from graphics.
5 screens from 1 7970 and an i5 760?? I bought two 680s to do triple screens, if I wanted to power 5 screens I'd be looking at two 7990s once they get released. A single 7970 runs Dirt 3 at 40 fps @ 5760x1080... not sure what kind of performance you're expecting from RF2 and 5 screens?
As I said, I'm getting 150+ fps in iRacing with HIGH settings! Same with every other sim I use. In rF2 with everything off and set to low or medium I get 60-70 fps TOPS, and it looks like an oversaturated water painting with severe aliasing. To compete with the rest devs will have to TRIPLE the performance at least and I just don't see that happening. Regarding you comparing it with Dirt 3, if rF2 looked anything like it I would understand but as of now I fail to see what's using up all the gpu power. If you want to spend rediculous amounts of money on two 7990's thats your call but what it all comes down to is unoptimized graphics code.
Tire model, the deformation (allthough through a lookup table, if I understand correctly) realroad tech, the general physics, the air pressure calculations(which is worked on) the dynamic sky, rain, shadows from clouds... comparisons to any other sim will be off.. Not saying it doesn't need improving but hey, even the LODs are not finished, of cars and tracks!
As RF2 is still in Beta it will no doubt receive optimisations to the graphics code further down the line, but what you're hoping for is unrealistic. A bit like buying a Ferrari 458 and returning it to the dealer complaining that when you tow a caravan behind it theres a big performance hit.
So the physics engine is so advanced that theres no room for the graphics to be anyway near the competition? Maybe I am asking for to much. I want a racing sim that's as close to reality as possible in terms of driving with smooth enough graphics not to kill immersion. Anyone knows how long's the beta period gonna be?
Don't mix gfx and physics. in rF2 physics is separated from gfx and calculated independently on different cores. Comparing to other titles like iR, it should give a gain, but it doesn't.
I bet even Gion dont know how long it goes. I understand you, everyone here would prefer a faster development. But in fact, no one here (staff excluded) has experience with the development of such a very complex and large software project, and therefore, no one here can determine how long it would take to do such things. It's simple as that.
don't worry be happy...... ATI will get around to updating there drivers some day not like NVIDIA who seem to be on to things str8 away COMPLAIN to ATI not ISI
It was intimated initially that it would be 6 months at the most. Which would mean it should be going gold in about a month.