What's with people not caring about looks?

Well my eyes must be buggered then,because when I've done track days and one time being driven for 6 hotlaps in a 98 bttc car,I couldn't see any sharp lines unless we were going slow.rhe vibrations were mega,and the scenery was moving by fast.
Don't forget driving fast in a daily car isn't like the ride you will get in a race car.
You simply do not get a pin sharp image of everything,even when it's in front of you,according to what I experienced

 

Yes, the scenery flying past may be blurry (which I stated in my post), but the things in front where you focus on are sharp. If not your eyes are indeed "buggered" (Nystagmus)
6 years of kart racing of which 2 years 125cc shifter karts and 10 years of speedsurfing competition and the occasional track days (amongst other things) confirm what I am experiencing.
I could elaborate on this, but it would be too much off topic I guess...

 

I think your local optometrest could expect a call from you. lol
Hey, everyone has their own idea of what we should see. This thread is testament to that.
As I've been told a few times "I'm not 100% wrong" lol and that can be said to just about all posts on here.

 

I fired up a quick race today at the Nordschleife, firstly on Assetto Corsa, and straight after on rfactor 2 , to try and see how much difference the graphics made to the whole experience.
As expected, the general look of the AC version is better for sure, but here's the thing, it just felt better all round on rfactor 2. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but the "feeling of being there" is just so much greater in rfactor2.
The sense of speed, the AI, the unparalleled ffb.
I guess graphics really aren't the be all, end all of sim racing, although as previously stated, at max graphics settings, they really are quite good already here.
Really, the only thing I'm looking for off the bat with the DX11 update is a little better performance/optimisation.
The rest can follow after.

 

I ran some laps at NOLA today on my own, no AI, and was hitting 120 fps at near max graphics settings. It would appear the addition of around 20 AI is killing my frame rates.
My cpu is pretty poor by today's standard, an FX6300, but my gpu is decent, the RX480 8 gig.
I assume this is an obvious cpu bottleneck?
I really don't want to spend out on a new motherboard/cpu until the whole ryzen/intel situation settles.
Would throwing a secondhand FX8350 improve things much for now?

 

No idea?

 

assetto's graphics aren't that great to start with, washed out, dull, lifeless all spring to mind. If I was doing a comparison I would be doing it against project cars, to me that is the standard for graphics in sims, then you would notice a big difference.
I'm sure not everyone will agree though, but I don't scratch beyond the surface when it comes to the gfx look.

 

Is that with stock content? If so, it's not normal.

 

Yes, the USF2000 at NOLA.

It seems like the addition of a lot of AI is the issue that's causing me fps problems.
I'm assuming that is a cpu bottleneck rather than a gpu one?

 

Definately CPU bottleneck.. run same track on a multiplayer server and you wont have a problem.. The cpu is doing all the hard yards calculating everything for all the cars

 

Would be interesting to know wich graphic settings you are running aswell as checking the cpu usage and vram usage with ctrl+f and ctrl+j iirc. I made a few races with the DW12 (not the same car obviously) and about 20 AI drivers and had zero issues and it ran smooth throughout all the race, even at the start it was steady. I have allmost all settings on high, except AF (2x) and Shadowblur (optimal). My CPU is a Phenom II X4 955 and the GFX a GTX 770, so not really an ideal system.

 

Should be Ctrl-F (Frames) and Ctrl-C (Computation) iirc? BTW: when pressing Ctrl-C -> purple = processor | green = graphics

 

I'm a huge AC fan and I really have to agree with you on this. In fact I would go as far as saying some of the most beautiful tracks I have ever seen have been here in rF2 (Spa Historic, Fall Nordschleife) to name a couple.
(If there are more? Please name them! Newbe here)

I also agree, more real is better but in the end physics is what makes it real and is why I am here.

Driving white knuckled at 197 mph in the F1 Spark down a back straight of Spa Historic is ten times more realistic to me then Forza's best graphics or even VR at the moment.

 

Some of the most visceral elements that make a title more immersive can be hard to identify and it's likely often due to a combination of elements; convincing physics+FFB+ sounds may be far more effective than shiny graphics for many of us.

AC looks great IMO but, there are a few key things lacking that hurt immersion and keep it from being the best visceral experience for me.

Physics: v10 TM is better but, some low-speed behavior seems odd at times and feels unnatural; FFB: the way that rF2 and AMS have a more progressive buildup of force leading up to front grip-loss feels more natural where AC has more linear SAT forces IMO; Sound: AC lacks a proper drive-train flex model and while the audio work-around's are better than nothing, it's still obvious at times, that it's fudged. AI are also probably involved and that's no contest between titles.

I feel those are mainly why I find rF2 and AMS to be more visceral driving experiences.

 

For the most part I don't like PP's in AC. It makes everything look smokey to me.

I have been comparing the two latey and I am more and more impressed with rF2 all the time. Not sure if it's the physics of rF2 giving a placebo effect or what?

I think rF2 could do the most improvements by cleaning up the poor res pictures of cars when scrolling through menu. I remember looking the first time and I was disappointed before I started now I'm surprised how good it really is and I'm more disappointed with other titles.

 

Let off the fuel and first touch of the brakes is intoxicating to me in rF2. AC is missing this part of the physics completely.
I downloaded a ripped copy of Spa Historic for AC and it is a long boring drive in the F1 49. All the pretty graphics of Forza couldn't help!

 

Have to agree on the historic Spa track, its brutal !

My talent runs out way before the end of the first lap

 

Pcars has great graphics but I find I have to turn everything so low in VR it's all for not.

Really looking forward to the update in rF2 because of the lean and very well detailed graphics.

 

Are there some gfx effects that just don't work in VR? I heard that normal maps didn't work like they did on a monitor and obviously the billboard trees/crowds/etc.

 

This comment is not so much about visuals, more about immersion as a whole.
A friend came to my place yesterday, he is a very good sim racer, not quite alien speed but good enough to be leading our league's GT series, halfway through the series, against some other quick drivers.
He has a very modest setup, 1 @ 1920x1200 monitor, G27 with brake mod consisting of a 1 inch long piece of speargun rubber in the pedal's spring. I think he may have a very basic homemade timber cockpit. He does run most of the graphics settings on max.

He had a go in my cockpit, OSW, Wilwood pedals, triple monitors, 4 shaker Simvibe in a 8020 aluminium cockpit.
He had not tried a setup like mine before and after about 5 or so minutes he stopped and shook his head saying it's almost too much to take in.
I asked him about the "look" compared to his and he said didn't even notice that I have to have some things off or not running at max.
Obviously he had that reaction because of the new experience with different hardware but a more immersive experience can make the visuals less important.