I did it... no luck. It stutters even with low settings. It's the only title that I have this sort of issue.
As for the whole disable Hyperthreading deal, when HT is on, there is not one physical and one logical core per "physical physical" core. There is two logical cores representing one physical core. That´s for starters. And just by enabling HT, you don´t suddenly have two logical cores with half the computiing power of the physical one. That would mean, a single-threaded workload would only run half as quick as it could with HT disabled. That´s not the case, the resources are allocated dynamically, so as long as there is nothing else to do, that program runs just as fast as it would without HT. Now the worst case for a two-threaded program would indeed be, if the Windows scheduler decided to run both its threads on the two logical cores that belong to the same physical core, when there are still idle or less loaded physical cores available. But the scheduler in Windows 7 is aware of hyperthreading and was taught to be smart about its decisions, where to put the workloads. So in theory, Windows 7 does not put two threads on a single core, when there is still another idle physical core. But even if it did and the other physical cores are idle or only lightly loaded, then the more modern processors will speed up that heavily loaded core, by overclocking it (AMD TurboCore or Intel Turbo Boost). And for the paranoid of heart there is always the CPU affinity, which can be set by the "+procmask" command line parameter in the advanced tab of the rFactor2 launcher. That value is a bitmask represented as a decimal number, so is not that straight forward, but here is an example: Code: core: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bit: 1 2 4 8 .... mask: 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 core numbering starts at 0 and you have to add the bits of the core you want to use. Each core that has a 1 in the above mask will be included the others excluded, to avoid two threads being put on one single physical core. The calculation is simply adding the bits which have a 1 in the mask corresponding to it. Code: 1 + 4 + 16 + 64 = 85 => +procmask=85 rFactor2 may not use 4 (independent) threads at the moment, so the above is a bit overkill at first sight, but it leaves Windows free to migrate any of the threads to any of the activated cores, if it sees fit.
Hi, If you haven't already done so, try RECORD TO MEMORY= "1" in your PLR file under [Game Options]. It worked perfectly for me when nothing else would get rid of my constant stuttering. I have 8Gb Ram, so no problem here but if you have less it should work too as I find RF2's memory usage not as great as you would think and that's with maxed out settings and 24AI + My Car. Try it and see. Nothing to lose! Andy_RF2
It seems however that neither ISI, nor many of the forum user, care much about accepted terminologies. ISI, as well as many forums users just do a wild interpretation of the term beta to make it fit their actual argumentation. Alpha was never used for rFactor2. Since the very first line of code it was beta, or rather an "evolving product". When it was "beta" we did not get info because it was beta. Being beta there are obviously bugs. STOP complaining it's beta for 6 months... we read on all threads. Now, after 13 months, it's not beta anymore, it's not commercial either... it's constantly evolving... even though the "evolved" actual release it still full of bugs and btw the evolved product is the same as the former beta product. However nothing has really changed according to ISI. Let me summarize the recent explanations we got: - rF2 is not alpha, it never was - rF2 is not beta, it somehow was but even during beta it was always a commercial release - rF2 was since the "commercial beta release" feature & content uncomplete and has/had lots of bugs - after 13 months of beta, ISI simply renamed the actual build from "BETA" to "constantly evolving" - even though Rf2 is not even in BETA phase according to general usage of terminology in the whole software industry, ISI sells it now as "post-BETA"-quality release. jaja... the refund... > Don't sell your refund policy for more than what it is: it seems you're selling a non-finished product(without saying it clearly) and in the majority of EU countries customer protection would give the customer a right to get their money back. - NOBODY really know where we actually stand - What's new after the BETA-renaming trick? nothing at all... we won't get any more information, we won't get bug-fixes (ISI has recently been stating the 60 mirror bug is not a priority...) - what's happening in the modders corner... if you're looking a the mods corner threads, the announcement are pretty sober and after 1 year of beta, there are practically no modded driveable cars out. - tracks = pretty ok. > we're basically stuck with a non-finished product where the developing company seems to be hiding behind words: it's beta, it's evolving, it's ready enough, it's not ready, feature and content will come maybe, maybe not... whatever suits best. Just one thing is sure: ISI will not change their communication or policy even if customer complain. At least we're having one constant in this developement: customer satisfaction is definitely not on the priority list of ISI. This is not meant personal, not towards TIM or ISI... but the way you're treating your customers is not acceptable and I profoundly disagree your customer relationship policy. Even though you might be a small company, you're around since some years and you can't rely on the "start-up company sympathie" bonus anymore. You're a grown-up company... You are generating angry and unsatisfied customer just because you lag a proper communication policy... Ah, no sorry I forgot, obviously it's NOT your communication but our fault, we're just not patient enough... I don't care when rF2 gets an update, bug-fixing, new features or new content... however I don't like being fooled and that the only reason I'm replying to this thread. Some examples of what I mean: On the sales page: "rFactor2 is an evolving product, and as such, we expect to be adding cars, tracks and features for many years to come. We encourage people to purchase rFactor2 based on its current features and content at the time of purchase. We offer a 30-day refund if you are unhappy with the current product for any reason (see “risk free” section below for refund policy), and you should decide on whether rFactor2 is right for you during this period." no mention about possible bugs, uncomplete or not working features, GFX optimization to be done" Why not telling the whole story? Why creating this confusion? Under news: rFactor2 testing has now been under way for six months. During that time we have released software updates, introduced new features, released new cars, and new tracks. We have also refined our in-house purchasing and activation system, processing and handling … Continue reading → You're removing the beta denomination and don't even update your web-site... again and sorry to be so direct: you're a grown-up company and not a bunch a student.
This so perfect that should be stick under purchase tab. Only matter it is slightly off-topic, wich is only accepted if made by certain type of people here. You know the procedure now: 1. Someone will made any joke about gow poor you are for bringing this subject to surface, constantly refund politics change and product naming trick. 2. Life rulers will talk about your social life because you are saying bad things about the software and because they worry only about social life from people talking like you, not the hundreds useless open threads or posts. 3. Tim will offer you a refund.
Why, ok maybe a bit but it's certainly all related? Actually, all threads regarding optimizations and future features / content should be answered by ISI but they simply don’t… The question was if we will get optimizations in future or not. NOBODY knows it and ISI will not tell us. At the end we can only guess and the question if we are in alpha, beta or commercial seems to be right on spot: > If we are in /alpha/beta, we can obviously expect optimizations > the product is not finished. > it is very likely that we get massif optimizations. > if we're "post"-beta, we are close to final product, at least in terms of quality of the existing features. > engine should already be pretty much optimized. Why would you go out of beta otherwise? As we're seeing performance issues on both AMD / NVidia it's not very likely to squeeze much more out of the engine. btw: As ISI decided not to inform their customer about the development progress, they should just close all threads asking information about the future of Rf2. > it wouldat least be consistent with their communication policy: such threads do not give any added value if not replied by anybody that is on top of the development plan > hence these threads can be closed. "Classic between updates popcorn thread" Don't forget the "constantly evolving product" > we are and will always be inbetween updates. This means that this usefull discussion will go on forever... expect if if somebody changes his attitude: either the customers finally start behaving and stopp request nasty information on progress or ISI starts to communicate... Your statement made clear to me that something must be done in that area.
"...they should just close all threads asking information about the future of Rf2. > it would least be consistent with their communication policy: such threads do not give any added value if not replied by anybody that is on top of the development plan > hence these threads can be closed." Where do we get our "popcorn entertainment" then I kinda agree on this one... if a thread has a direct question to ISI about the developement it should be closed... if on the other hand it is just speculating and guessing things then it should be kept open. We want to argue about things and then ISI can choose whether or not to participate into the conversation.
Not necessarily. A person with experience in programming 3D graphics can also provide valid answer after doing some research into rF2 engine. And that's what I did. The "beta thing" has been discussed more than enough already on various occasions and it doesn't actually answer the original question of this topic. The true answer is in technical things, not in stage of development.
Truth is if you read between the lines, and even from direct comments from Tim, we do know there is more optimisation to come, there was a good thread on the subject where someone took the time to test various configurations from low end to high and came to the conclusion that while the transition from a low to mid system showed a good increase in performance, the increase from mid to high was negligible. So I think it is safe to say there is work to do, or being done to improve that. It is also worth remembering that there are two levels of testing (at least) going on. Here at our level. and the closed testing that no one can talk about. Who knows at what stage the closed beta is at, or what functions are being tested there. Safe to say it would not exist unless they were testing things we are yet to see. Sure we would all love to hear more, but it's not ISI's way. The communication drum has be banged many time...by me as well, but there comes a point where you just have to except that we get what we get, and no amount of moaning about it is going to change that. "Some software is kept in perpetual beta—where new features and functionality are continually added to the software without establishing a firm "final" release... " It matters not what ISI, Tim or anyone else calls it, that description describes rF2 perfectly. It boils down to "Constantly evolving" Does this mean I am happy with the status quo? Of course not...I want it all and I want it now! But as my old man used to say "I want never gets" Still don't know what he meant by that
"Sure we would all love to hear more, but it's not ISI's way. The communication drum has be banged many time...by me as well, but there comes a point where you just have to except that we get what we get, and no amount of moaning about it is going to change that." I can fully understand you but I have a different attitude: If things are wrong, they are wrong even if somebody keeps you telling something else. So basically I wil not stop complaining... and btw: I'm not the only person over here which is quite sensivitive about it. Read some sim racing forums and you will see that many people are p... off.... since a long time. The beta naming thing was just the cherry on cake....
For sure, and if you have read other threads (as I'm sure you have) you would have seen Tim say he doesn't want folk to stop complaining...I personally have, because you can only bang your head against the same wall for so long. Yes I too said at the time I thought the dropping of the word Beta was a mistake, Still believe that, I think they built a rod for people to beat them with. Sitll it gives us something to talk about until we have an update to talk about
Perpetual beta: "Users must be treated as co-developers, in a reflection of open source development practices (even if the software in question is unlikely to be released under an open source license.) The open source dictum, 'release early and release often', in fact has morphed into an even more radical position, 'the perpetual beta', in which the product is developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis. It's no accident that services such as Gmail, Google Maps, Flickr, del.icio.us, and the like may be expected to bear a 'Beta' logo for years at a time."[1]" sorry but the perpetual thing is still very different from what ISI does. AND HELLOOOO: rF2 is officially not BETA anymore! are people slowly getting it or not? "It matters not what ISI, Tim or anyone else calls it, that description describes rF2 perfectly. It boils down to "Constantly evolving"" Yeah, let's make our own naming convention and at least nobody can blame us... pretty clever somehow but not very transparent. I'm sure that if ISI would post another thread: Some changes! "Due to the nature of rF2 being a constantly evolving product, we cannot guarantee bug-free releases. As part of our communication policy, we won't be able to confirm whether a bug is given attention or not. At the same time we have changed our refund policy to endorse the above mentioned changes: Once you've bought the product you have 2 weeks to request a refund. In the meantime, we wish you lots of fun, especially for those of you that are racing in a league." and we all go:"that's pretty smart from ISI. Of course it's normal to have bugs in a constantly evolving product. They know exactly what they are doing. rF1 had some bugs as well in the beginning." or "In order to focus our developement on the tire-model we have decided to change our approach for the graphics engine. As a starting point, we have temporarely removed colour support. The plan is to remove GFX engine bit by bit until we are ready to remove it completely. Ultimately, we want you to be able to concentrate to 100% on our physics engine: Using GFX and controllers has proven to be distracting real sim-racers. Hence we aim a pure command line interface. Quickly you will be able to read the telemetry data output and control the car by direct and simple command line code. Secondly, this minor change should also have a major impact on modders, mainly track and car builders. Finally the modelling work is gone! So expect a huge number of mods coming out, as soon as we switch off the GFX engine. Even though this change was announced since the very beginning, we will offer you a one week refund period. In case you're not satisfied with the actual build, you can request a refund during this time. We believe that this major move in our developement strategy will help us to bring you new features and content within the best delays. " Yes, sounds like a brilliant idea for a small company. They really focus on the important things. It's a simulator and it doesn't need nice graphics or colour at all... for the arcade player: get NFS. we don't want you here in our community. I just hope that they will find time to get rid of the sound as well... but let's not be too demanding at this stage.
Soon it will be difficult to ask a question around here, because someone is bound to reply "it's beta", then someone will say it's not beta, next two pages will be full of posts describing what beta is and what beta is not and another two pages will describe how communication should look like and what other expectations people had. Until finally someone will ask: "What was the question again?"
Hmm Some rather extreme exaggeration there, Naming conventions are just that, conventions. I have lost count of the amount of bugged games that could have done with a years more testing that are released as finished. If your lucky a fix comes down the line for the major bugs and a year later it's the next big thing and your bugged game is forgotten. At least here we have a Sim that will be with us for some years and okay I choose to believe it is going to be the first half of this year that it gets the main flaws sorted, things like tire models may change (look at iracing, still updating basic stuff like tires and sound...another open Beta?) I'm also just playing devils advocate because I am a little bored
Always happens when there is no new build to talk about, the same gripes come up and do the rounds one more time. In fact it's about time for it to turn into a guess when the next build is coming thread...This week since your asking...Thursday if you were to push me
Oh well, "evolving product" reminds me of... wait... for... it... It might not have been an iRacing official, that said it, but I only googled for 30 seconds to find such statement, officially signed off by them, since they put it on ther testimonials. I have been a member for quite a while now and, seeing that they release major updates on a quaterly basis, which also includes new features, by some definition it can be called an alpha, which I pay a premium for compared to what rFactor2 cost me! I went for the small package, so no lifetime licence for rFactor2. For the same money, a new member can´t even run iRacing for a whole year and gets less content. Meaning to say, I´d rather see rFactor2 be more like iRacing, because there is always something that can be improved on. Remember when rF1 was ancient already by todays standards? People started to complain about stuff missing and functionality not being on par with current simulations. Force Feedback comes to mind, and Leo FFB and Realfeel, could only mitigate its limitations to a certain extent, which was still unsatisfactory for me. So I had to wait, what, 5 years, to see an improvement in that area? And to be honest it is just on par with the competition, maybe slightly better. But the competition that keeps evolving will soon be ahead again, if ISI keeps releasing monolithic major versions every decade or so. So, long story short, I believe ISI might be thinking similarly. And anyone that cannot read marketing and is still unsatisfied with rF2 can request a refund. But be reasonable, in its cureent state rFactor2 is already a truckload of fun. And what I paid for the licence, I have smoked cigarettes worth that much in a week, and they turned to ashes. But my good ol´ copy of rF2 is still as new as on first installation, no worn of bits and bytes. Sorry for bringing iRacing up, but for me it is the benchmark in racing simulations at the moment, and the most complete package. As I said it comes at a hefty price. I don´t mean to advertise for them, I just wanted to make a point using them as an example. Cheers, Marcus P.S.: I would indeed like to see someone take on iRacing, because my fellow club members seem to be stuck there already. I had to push myself to have a look at rF2. I don´t think it would be good if in the long run, any serious simracer is in iRacing and nowhere else to be found. Monopolies are never a good thing!
