I wish clouds would be better in RF2 more than adding a lensflare.. I don't like the sky without some clouds and in RF2 they're always the same, no random volumes and shapes, they looks so boring.. Here is one video for example from AdrianF1, RL clouds vs RF2..
+1 and i could really see the enhancement to the overall experience with this little details (even if they were simply pre-baked clouds like iracing's i believe).
Definitely agree about the clouds. Some 'HD' clouds would make the sky look more dramatic and realistic. I'm sure it could be worked into the dynamic weather system somehow. As for sun glare and lens flare - personally I don't mind a few affects that add to the eye candy. It's a game after all and those Forza shots look stunning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAKDVSDVtwI <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/zAKDVSDVtwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes! yesterday i was trying pCars and notice how the sun coat the frame, was nice and natural, also the volumetric clouds and lens flare. rF2 needs those eye candys to have a better inmersion, and those do NOT interfere with the FFB or physics or the tire behavior, so no moan about the simulation part, this is just VISUAL.
Thanks realkman I think that a little of sunlight or lens flare would add some visual immersion to the driving experience in rf2!
Having been a truck driver for nearly 20 years, I think I have driven into the sun at dawn or dusk more times than I care to remember. Yes it is difficult to see straight at the sun, but with a visor to block the direct light from your eyes, or sunglasses, you can still see just fine. In modern racing, there are amber shields for helmets that allow you to drive when it is dark and still see, but cut down on the sun effect when it is rising or setting.
I'm sure I remember some shots in the screenshots thread from Devmode where someone had been playing and with the settings and had produced effects not a million miles away from the thread's opening shots. Can't dig them out as I'm on my phone, but I think rF2 can do it. It just doesn't feel like it at the minute...
I'm sure I remember some shots in the screenshots thread from Devmode where someone had been playing and with the settings and had produced effects not a million miles away from the thread's opening shots. Can't dig them out as I'm on my phone, but I think rF2 can do it. It just doesn't feel like doing it at the minute...
Imo rf2 does need something like what is seen in realkman666`s video with the vette, after all that`s reality and reality is what we`re after here... Have it like it is in the video when not using the visor option in rf2 and if using the visor then add a little lens flare... I like to see a lot of these little effects being introduced in rf2 but with the option(s) to turn them off if not wanted.
These screenshots are old and from Devmode: Why can't we have something like this in rf2 anymore? Ps: Sorry for the OT, but I find this screen from google, what is this track?
that does look nice, and not overdone PS: the track appears to be charlotte motor speedway (At least, that is what they say in the Upcoming ISI Content List thread
Which explain the little fps boost in latest build for some systems. On topic: lens flare and blindness caused by sunlight could be a little overdone (lens flare) in pcars, but still better then rf2 state right now. pCars graphics should be a golden goal to rf2 as rf2 physics should be a golden goal to then.
Lens flare isn't that hard, but it's not going to go top of a list. I assume you'd only want it in TV cam replays anyway, right? Eyes don't produce it. Light flare is already shown in the right conditions, though I haven't been in those for a while to experience it in a LONG time.
No it doesn't, as we've already said. Or are you saying that all those people experiencing FPS changes always checked their FPS in conditions of flare? In any case, no, it doesn't. Or, our goals should be our goals, not someone else's product.
Yeah, perfect example of a very BAD plastic camera lens and a very BAD CMOS chip. That's what you have with a real lens (Nikkor afs 17-35 f/2.8 ) and a real camera (Nikon D700 ): View attachment 10239 Minimal lens flare (and colored "ballons" that you DON'T see with your eyes provided you don't look through a lens) LOT LOT of contrast and details in darker areas. P.S. we spend thousands of euros in lens also BECAUSE of the superficial treatment these lens have in order to minimize lens flare, now we have the opportunity to spend nothing to eliminate lens flare and know what: someone want it simulated!
