No. Every DX9 content runs in DX11, both use the same shaders, so DX version isn't an issue. Graphics were updated just a few months ago when DX11 was released, in case you forgot, and people were generally praising it. The performance issues that are remaining relate to gMotor's weird usage of CPU and PCI Express, has nothing to do with DX11.
I've only played race room and iracing,but to me,these latest graphics improvements in rf2 look way better than any of those mentioned above. And the graphics are only set to get better,i get better performance in rf2 than I do iracing
This picture is not what I have. Not even close. This picture is amazing. What I have is many times overexposed from this. Is this picture what you guys have in game? I think a fully done rF3 would sell every bit as well as PC2!
You misinterpreted my entire post Yes, I know every DirectX9 content runs in DX11. That wasn't the point. The point is that even DX11 content can look bad, have low polygon 3D modeling and what seems to be 512x512 textures (I'm not saying that's their measure, BTW, just emphasizing that they can look bad and old, like a 2004 game). It seems MOD's don't receive much attention in this regard - once most are out, they're out. And about that screenshot: it's known that rFactor 2 can look really good sometimes nad with certain conditions, but at what cost? While, say, AC can look really good with almost no effort on my computer, I simply can't race while having all the effects turned on on rFactor 2. Take these images bellow as an example. First, the very good GP3 MOD on Sepang. All graphical options are on their maximum allowed setting, but no Special Effects so far. 50 FPS and doesn't look too good: Then with all SFX enabled, 16 FPS: 23 FPS on the cockpit: ------------------------------ Now let's move to Assetto Corsa. With the graphic settings on an average "Medium", here's how it looks. This is a Mustang MOD I haven't updated in a while: 128 FPS and looks really good. I can even get some blur with the same graphical options. For some reason MSI dind't capture the FPS, but it's just a tad higher than on the cockpit: Then with every graphical option to max, here's the result: Doesn't change the graphics much. Still looks very good with the graphic settings on Medium, that's why I keep them on that level. The outside view, now with everything on Max: -------------------------------- I'm not here to blame Studio397. They didn't develop the game, they just picked up development and are already doing great work. However, rFactor 2 can look extremely terrible with ease (there are worse mods out there, the GP3 is one of the good ones) and performance-to-visuals is horrendous ATM. I'm not sure they can pull out making our Sim look good while improving performance at the same time. I've seen one of their latest videos on rainy conditions are looking REALLY GOOD, but I'm literally scared that I won't be able to enjoy those visuals without having to run the sim at 3 FPS. If that's the case, I'm abandoning rF2 completely since they plan to phase out DirectX9 from it.
Just to clarify a thing @stonec: You say that the pci express 2.0 in x16 (vs 3.0) is largely the problem and NOT the optimization of the beta. This is not completely true : - dx9 + full ultra graphics + mirrors + max antialiasing IN PCIE 2.0 = ultra smooth (without overclocking) - dx11with exactly equivalent settings in quality without post effect WITHOUT mirrors and AA at max with PCIE 2.0 = not at all smooth with EQUIVALENT GRAPHIC QUALITY, EVEN PCIE 2.0 AND ESPECIALLY OVERCLOCKING OF 23% OF THE GTX 780. = sometimes 20fps I'm not saying you're wrong but only partially right .
I think @stonec meant this regarding performance issue: Bus usage PCI-e@3.0 x16, left side is Zandvoort max 59%, right is Silverstone max 35% Bus usage PCI-e@2.0 x16, left side is Zandvoort Max 76%, right is Silverstone max 69% PCI-e@3.0 x16 > 155-210 fps PCI-e@3.0 x8 (PCI-e@2.0 x16) > 115-165 fps
I believe that we get proper DX11 optimization when DX9 support is ending but ofcoure problem still reminds with some of the 3p content which are probably never going to be optimized .
I may be wrong as I use to, but in order to be able to process realistic rain, S397 will need to provide a much improved DX11 version, or the cars will crawl on screen. Cheers.
rf2 isn't well optimised atm, its common fact.. When you can run AC or pcars2 full ultra at around 100-144fps on a 144hz screen, and rf2 dips (around 50) and stutters/// says it all.. but give em a chance to sort it..
There must be something wrong with you settings or PC My older game PC I7 3770k with single 780Ti is able to run rFactor 2, 22 AI Silverstone/Mclaren at 144hz/144fps with same monitor as you have with this settings: rFactor2 video settings: Resolotion > 2560x1080 Mode > Fullscreen Anti Aliasing > 3 Post Effects > low Sync> Video Inn Game > Options > Display: Circuit Detail Full Player Detail > Full Opponent Detail > Full Texture Detail > Full Texture Filter > X 16 Special Effects > Full Shadows > Medium Shadow Blur > Optimum Soft particles > Off Rain Drops > Yes Road Reflection > X Environment Reflection > Low
I agree with you that AC looks to some extend better and has the beteer overal lighting when we are talking daylight conditions, but with such comparisons it is important to keep a few things in mind and especialy consider how different engines work. If we compared all your points made about rF2 with PCars 2 you would be absulutely right, but there are a few things in AC that make it perform better that are achieved in a "cheap" way compraed to rF2. For one thing you are comparing a track that was propably build around 2007/2008 and got some texture updates but not using proper shaders or anything to really take full advabntage of what DX11 offers with a track that was build for DX11 using proper shaders and the available tech at hand. S397 will need time to get everything working and implement better shaders while still maintaining backwards compatibility with mods, wich I persoanyl very much desire. But the time gap between both tracks is something you simply can't overlook. Next to that you are looking at a static sky texture in AC (that has a very wierd gradient btw) with a sky that is rendered in real time. If you are a bit more familiar with real time sky rendering you will know that it takes quite a bit more beef than a jpeg or raw, or what ever it is in AC. Next to that you have a very detailed track in rF2 with alot of track side objects and a very flat and dull looking track in AC. Kunos has improved this a bit but it's still not the object desnity that you see on ISI or S397 tracks. This gives alot less objects to render and alot less objects to interact with light or cast shadows. Given the fact that the SF-grandstand and the pitbuilding in Sepang is a more complex building anyway you get wierd comparisons. Another big problem with AC - and it is very obvious on your screenshots - is the poor AA. Good AA takes alot of performance and Kunos went a middle-way with it. Now one could ask why devs go the way they do, but it all pretty much comes down to the fact of what you want to achieve with your tech. Kunos never wanted to implement weather, so they had allways one less stress factor to think about. It is up to each person what he/she prefers but something that seems to be very obvious or clear at the first time, can be very tricky at a second thought. And if you ask why PCars looks so much better, then it might be worth to go back in time and look when the Madness engine was developed. It was developed with huge amounts of cash and support by EA for NFS shift wich looked pretty stunning allready.
While driving you don't need more tham medium PP anyway so running it on low is no big deal And that particle system need an update, hopefully the new rain will change all of it not only the spray
I meant vital to visual immersion not driving game play. But what about the stutters on certain tracks that does effect driving. !
I can use more PP and use Soft particles but the point is that my Fps is never as you claim 50 fps and there is no stutters in my old game rig which has same CPU which is in you profile.
ive seen it drop so yes i can claim that mate.. not a constant fps but there moments when the engine is clearly struggling to what is going on. But you wouldn't know that as your literally running with minimal effects and no particles. so pointless argument with you really. Infact you may as well run dx9 right?
