Help me finding the graphical difference...

... between iRacing and rFactor2.

iRacing just posted this pic:
View attachment 7452

Now lets be honest! In this picture you can't see anything (besides the sky) that rF2 couldn't do in the current state of the engine.

-It's not that the car is much more detailed that the rF2 cars, nor are the car reflection effects,

-It's not the road, that is indeed looking great, but rF2 can do that as well

-It doesn't even use extreme blur effects like pcars is using a lot to hide far away ugly objects

-To be honest you can even see some really ugly textures in that shot (e.g. that balcony)


So why is it that overall this picture looks so much more real than any rFactor shot? Even edited rF2 shots have to be edited really good to get to that standard of realistic look!

Are there any hobby photographer or artists here that can explain this to me?

Sorry for yet another graphics-related thread, but this not supposed to be one of the "thegraphicsissobadiwantmyrefundcauseisisucks" kind of thread. It's more supposed to be art-design related.
I've been just constantly wondering, while racing rF2 or iR what it is that makes this visual difference. Because lets be honest: iRacing has nice clouds and some nice bodywork reflections. But besides that rF2 in my opinion is technically better in every point - exept for the overall look.

Greets

 

your screen reminds me that the undercar shadow is to be improved in rf2

 

Shaders, any one?!

 

Lighting and natural colors. rF2 ones are all but natural.

 

i would like a big bucket of popcorn, hold the cheese

 

The differences are mostly in lighting settings.
iRacing is using values measured in real life, while ISI uses an algorithm that controls lighting based on weather conditions and time of day. This algorithm in configured with hand-typed values.
Configuring lighting manually can produce good results as well, but you need to do your homework if you want to be able to do it correctly. Lot's of homework.

There are also some differences in lighting algorithm, but they're secondary.

Shaders didn't play much part, since iRacing is not using many reflections or advanced material parameters. So in this particular screen you don't see much "shader action"

It's mostly lighting settings, which ISI don't seem to have at the top of their list.

 

For comparison here is an unedited shot I just took from RF2 using the new monaco 66 layout HDR profile found on this forum.

View attachment 7453

 

Impressive & Wow!!!

I'm not a big fan of the pure\exclusive online experience, if I was, iracing would be the be-all & end-all for me.

I guess you would also, expect that level of graphical detail and functionality from a sim that was voted "Best Racing game of all time" by PCGamier . Add to the other worldly graphics and online experience that is second to none and iracing is hard to beat. The only downside to the series is that there's no offline single player mode, outside of that, it is as stated, other-worldly.

Project Cars is another one I'm anxious about. But still got a couple more months to go, with a release date of Q2-2014.
http://www.wmdportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/0051.png

Back to rfactor2 ... I think griping at this point is pretty much fruitless -- it is what it is. And currently, it is not on iracing's level, but hopefully one day "very soon" the ISI team will pull all the rF2 pieces together and start kicking butt again, like when the original rfactor was at its peak.

 

Always good replies. Unfortunately I think they are seldom understood.

 

What do you mean?

 

The best answer I can give is this: ISI failed to hire Hudson Kerr when it had the chance.

I think it's the biggest mistake I've ever seen ISI make.

 

I totally agree mclaren777, Hudson Kerr is really good at what he do.

 

He was a sound guy too wasn't he?

 

I hope you're being ironic when you posted... IR picture has better lights, reflections, textures, shadows, more convincing materials (eg carbon fiber, metal, rubber, tarmac, everything is pretty well defined), better colour balance, and, since I've been in this place (Interlagos boxes) plenty times, I can say the modelling is almost perfect.

Most of us know why IR lights are better (mainly because they're static) but it's not the discussion, IR picture is much more natural than any RF2 picture I've seen.

And yes, rF2 is a better simulator, has better FFB and physics, is moddable and much more interesting in general.

 

The sky of iR is a static map (like a background photo), rf2 has a dome as sky (like RL) and the clouds in a planar layer, also the shadows of iR in the track are static and baked (drawed in the objects texture) when in rF2 some shadows are baked others respond to the lighting making those dynamic and make possible the change of time of day, then the K Szczech reply is an acurate one.

 

the iRacing car and the shadows look great but that building on the left looks like something from a 1990s First Person Shooter game...very ordinary!
I think ISI are "getting there" with the cars, 1960s (latest shots) look great to me.

 

My humble opinion, the great against having rFactor 2 ... is the large consumption of resources it has, I understand it is due to the issue of the physical, so that the shadows and clouds practically have their own life and that should influence a lot, but with all the people I have talked and tried to carry rFactor 2 me say that, does not give me the rig that I have, and do not want to spend much money, and honestly, my rig is not so good, I have to make adjustments for example when I go to monte carlo, if I put the maximum AI pilots I have around 30 FPS, and they think that 29 car, is excellent the improvements we've had since the first build so far, but that's the against meeting him today to rFactor 2, and hopefully we could optimize lot more, but the truth is that I doubt, ISI hopefully give us something to go on for very many years, out of the graph rFactor 2 is the best thing in physics TODAY , and hopefully the day I leave the final version, we disclosed that from then on but will only make minor adjustments. My English is terrible and I want to clarify that this does not go with any bad intention, on the contrary I understand ISI, this amazing that they are doing, but the truth is that distresses me to think that I have to spend more money on my rig to work perfectly

 

Intel Sandy Bridge CPUs and upwards handles rF2 easily.

 

The building really looks like a 90's FPS game in real life... the IR reproduction is perfect.

 

My Q6600 OC to 3.4 pretty much cuts the mustard, I think I read over 3ghz and 4 cores is just about sufficient.