All you have to do is test amd and nvidia equalent cards with rF2, then find equalent performer to rF2 that is popularly used in GPU tests as a software/game, and just do valuation by approximation. Close enough, and find out whats what.
You think close enough is fine, Great ! I do not ! ...... lol ? I would like that site to do a giant test same style is all I said................... ......and what odds if I do ? ZZZzzzzzzzzzz
http://www7.pic-upload.de/01.05.14/615rz11l61t.jpg This is the only benchmark I've seen on rF2 with many different cards, from around fall 2013 so pretty outdated.
Thanks mate I seen all them, trust me. People don't seem to understand anything I say. Okay I will speak very slowly. I want the same test that site did for pCars done with AC and rFactor2 and whatever else they want to put. I want from 2.5 - 4.5HZ, 19 video cards, triple screens, 4K, single and multi GPUs I like the style of the results I like the way they talk I like their combination of tests Methodical clear concise and good on the eyes ! If I had my way all benchtests for games would follow that style.
The first rainspray version of RF2 actually had a ton of spray sort of like real life. OK, the pure graphics didn't look realistic/modern but the effect was more realistic since there was a ton of spray.
Another multi-page Assetto Corsa thread in the wrong forum / website I'm amazed how ISI staff democratically allows it, the vice-versa wouldn't happen.
Clio same spray than a Marussia... a big NO. Big spray in real life only happens at high speed. In rF2 a Clio at 100km/h creates stupid amounts of spray. I want to see this in rF2: And this (really wet track, high speed, and no F1 spray, in rF2 you get F1 spray with any car): Here at heavy rain, massive spray, almost imposible to see the car ahead, but not even close to rF2 the way It looks, rF2 create this "spray" at really low speeds: rF2 still looks like a trail of smoke or steam instead of actual water spray, and allways way longer than real life.
The last pages haven't been discussing AC at all It became more like a coffee place where you talk about anything, though related to sim racing gaming.
Well that is not true, I asked for a comprehensive bench-test for all sims. Back to AC the original poster I agree with and from everything I see not much has changed with builds. Like I said tried to have a race at Nords, Longford, Bathurst and okay rF2 has a few bugs but AC the Ai dropped like flys and big flips into the air up and along invisible walls makes it arcade looking. Even Online that sort of thing would put me off, again not all rF2 crashes are realistic but AC and especially pCars are immersion destroying. Thank goodness ISI thinks "Realworld" Have a crash in rF2 you can end up over a fence, on top of a haybale , in a river etc The others you hit a fence just get car pointed right way and way you go back to pits. Lesmos as a example rF2 you end up in the bushes can't even see where you drive. Curva Grande understeer and you smack a tree. Parabolica graveltrap you don't pull up in 50 metres like the rest either. BTW It is not just about discussing AC, he asked about his compare between sims and what he felt. It is only fair anyone offers an opinion on his points ? You do not have to agree with him.
1000% agree with Esteve Rueda!! You´ve nailed it! There´s no difference regarding rain-spray between cars and it looks like........ , yes, "steam" is the best term.
pCars is used in those benchmark tests because it has the latest tech and it stresses the GPU quite heavily. No big gaming site will do benchmarks of a DX9 title in 2015 I'm afraid. Even AC runs too well on latest hardware to be a proper benchmark game, they always go for the games with most eye-candy.
I run AC with the default PP profile but I've run with it disabled and it still looked fine. It's interesting with the latest updates, especially 1.3 doing so much work on tires and other driving aspects, that pretty much all mods need editing again... which some may recall, was one of the arguments used by some modders to use AC instead of rF2 - "Solid core that isn't changed from build to build."
You know AC with "Full" quality settings runs better then Project Cars. Show me the compare then, sort of reinforces my point don't it. Why ? is simple. ProjectCars shows you do not need expensive specs or overclocking to run it well @1080 which is the most used resolution. Seems funny they would not want to explore and try to explain the gains in Pcie3.0 with rFactor2............ even if it is DX9.
I agree, the implementation wasn't correct (tons of spray at low speeds), and the graphicss weren't/aren't good either (individidual clouds/puffs) but the fact that there was a ton of spray (regardless of speed) was a very, very early starting point in my opinion.
I currently own and drive everything...except PCARS. I did own it once. It's community became too 'fractured' and I did not like the massive 'download to update policy'...being on a less than stellar connection. RRE is another which I can't seem to get into much...despite a few nice features. The colors and car handling just don't seem to do much for me. I usually run maybe ten laps at most in any given session, then put it away....sometimes for weeks. Great sound...but the environment seems lacking. I can't put my hand on any one thing. AC is for me... a very nice-looking sim. I personally like it better than what I remember of PCARS. The view out the windshield in AC most reminds me of my actual time in the car and although PCARS has move vivid colors, that not representative of how I remember it from the cockpit. Some tracks in AC are also pure joy...regardless of what car you take there. Mugello is such an example. It just 'flows'. I'm tending to run Automobilista more these days...especially the open-wheeled cars at Barcelona. It's nice to have this many choices.