Disclaimer: Opinion piece. I've read several times within these very forums about folks not caring if tracks are laser scanned or are even accurately replicated within the sim. I for one cannot understand why racers don't want, or don't care for, highly accurate tracks. Especially in relation to rF2 (the most hardcore of all sims). We all want the most accurate physics models, tire models, car models, telemetry data, race rules, aerodynamics model etc, and yet when it comes to track accuracy their are those that say "Meh! It's not that important". I just don't understand this mentality from within the rF2 audience. Surely anyone who is using this software is doing so because of how accurately racing is recreated through the very complex engine that drives it. The amount of work and effort that goes into making rF2 and the physics behind it is a telling statement about the drive to replicate racing to a degree that most of us will never experience irl but yet crave. That's why we use it. To drive the most accurately replicated vehicles around interpretations rather than accurate reproductions of real world tracks is self defeating when using a 'simulator'. If you don't try and simulate tracks to the highest detail, then why try to simulate anything at all. I also don't buy into the argument of "how would you know if it's accurate or not?". Pilots and coming to sims in their droves to get 'track ready'. It's these very folks that will quickly verify the authenticity of any track or vehicle.
Just to point out, laser scanned tracks are still “interpretations” of the real thing. I came from iracing, and thought i wouldn’t like non laser scanned tracks, but I found the exact opposite, as long as the track is well made, I’m now happy to drive on both. I would rather have well made non laser scanned tracks that can’t be added due to licensing woes, than not have them at all unless laser scanned. Laser scanned tracks are better than non laser scanned, there’s no doubting that, but I think the two kinds actually complement each other. And then you have those who won’t race on anything unless laser scanned, which to me boggles my mind because they are missing out on so much. But end of the day, if the track layout is poor, no matter how it’s created in game, it will still feel poor to drive and race on, so selection is key, and shouldn’t be limited to official scanned only or vicer versa
Agreed that all of it is interpretation. It's when tracks are visibly wrong that I take issue with. Don't get me wrong though as I love fantasy tracks especially the ISI ones that were upgraded and updated by S397. I just think that if your creating a simulator then the aim should be to simulate it all as much as possible.
I am not planning to race IRL, I don't watch racing so I don't care if turn 6 of track XY is 2° degrees off. It could be even left corner instead of right corner for what I care if it is done nicely and challenging. If someone finds a video of 66 Spa and if it turns out that this gorgeous track is inaccurate in rf2 why should it matter for my enjoyment? I can understand a concern only for real life racers that use rf2 as a practice for a specific track.
That's fair enough but then begs the question. Why do you use rF2 over generic racing games if simulation isn't what your after?
Yeah there are some not very well made mod tracks along with mod cars, but atleast there’s enough to where we can be selective and only keep the good ones on our hdds. Personally Even though laser scanning adds so much detail to the road surface, over non laser scanned tracks, I still think it’s more of a marketing thing, which I don’t mind, because we need more people here to help fill up the online servers. And that’s why I think laser scanned tracks should be the focus of s397, one thing iracing likes to flaunt is the fact they have real life racers using iracing, which to be fair they have plenty of, but the reasoning why iracing state they are there, is what I take trouble with. They are there to race, not to practice and home their skills, because most of the rl drivers openly say iracing tyre model is “shit”. But i also think the thing that keeps these rl racers away from rf2,apart from the product as a whole being known for being in a mess, is the fact that rf2 doesn’t have or didn’t have any laser scanned tracks, these rl drivers would have heard that rf2 had the best tyre model and physics, so if laser scanning brings them here, that’s good marketing for rf2 to. Long post over lol
Also don't forget that the ground underneath track is always dynamic and is being affected by nature forces, so slowly but surely some bumps and undulations can change. It's not happening that fast as on public roads (unless you're running Formula Trucks extensively lol), but it still does.
@bravotangosix Given a choice between fantastic car physics and fantasy tracks, or perfectly laser scanned tracks and dodgy physics, I'd take the first any time. Both would be better, absolutely, but simulating a racing car is more about the car than about the track, and even for those that want to use it to train for real life the car is still at least as important as the track. To look at it another way, would I rather drive my sim car on a perfectly scanned track, or have unlimited opportunity to drive a real car on some track that has never hosted a real race? I'd take the second. I get that driving a real track in a game and finding that it's inaccurate, either in layout or in terms of surface condition, takes away from the experience. It's not clear from your post what views exactly you're referring to, but I've often said that as long as a virtual representation of a track is close enough to not be obviously different from the real thing, that's probably good enough for most people. People tend to misinterpret that and assume it means a rough representation of a real track is being talked about; I want something I can't tell is wrong, even if it is.
I think that's the crux of my opinion. It's all about the finer details that separates the generic race games from simulation software. I like the idea that I can roughly see how I compare to the racing world that is forever beyond my means. If a track is 'off' then I'm producing false data. I use rF2 because the physics feel alive when I drive. Just as my road car feels reactive to the road and my inputs. I'm not a 'half measures' kinda guy. If your going to do something, do it right.
I agree with your POV but what is the point in simulating half the experience. I find almost every car I drive in rF2 to be a thrilling experience until I go on to a flat pancake track. It''s like driving with boxing gloves on. Numb and lifeless. It spoils the experience for me.
@Lazza This discussion was brought on by the comments in @The Other Team Paul Ricard post. People asking "why are you doing another version when we already have at least two out there?" I personally commend the efforts of any modder or team who are trying to elevate the experience and simulation value of rF2. I can't comprehend why anyone would question a more accurate track reproduction in favour of watered down inaccurate versions. Hence my waffle above.
I have made fairly accurate track with no laserscan data, it took about four months of tweaking till I was about happy about the accuracy, and of course there are still a lot of doubts. I used every reference I could find or think of, I was lucky enough to get very good feedback from dozen of RL racers, event orgnisers who knew the track incredibly well, I got to drive there myself, I compared experience with VR experience, everything seems good, but I still have doubts, and I don't even talk about small undulations and features that slowly changes overtime, but if I got the elevation well enough, did I made the camber accurate enough and more... It took me four months, worth to mention that it was my first track. It was nemuno ziedas circuit, I made it for AC, and I wish to do it for rF2. My next project was Goodwood circuit based on LIDAR. Having LIDAR data literally saved months for me and provided much more confidence. I also even decided to use actual point cloud mesh for physical surface, rather than just using mesh simply as a reference. Naturally I had to smooth out some bits more, some less, I actually think I lost few bumps in few places, but I still was faced with some people expressing doubts about smoothness of the ride, naturally I just did few more steps of smoothing and felt like reached the happy medium, without destroying authenticity, and I still have it a bit rougher than usual Kunos tracks, P.S. I understand why Kunos wouldn't make any track with bold features like Sebring of rF2, that last corner is sublime, it is absolutely perfect example of laserscanning at its full force, for someone it might be too harsh (of course if we would agree to "interpretation argument" it is possible to interpretate to a level when you polish out the laserscan mesh way too much, IMO it is possible for LiDAR, but a groundlevel scan just has to be smooth enough by default, you have to look up how much error margin can be there, and whats the resolution of point cloud)... P.S. I have had some people who has driven Goodwood IRL, and they said good things about it. So to conclude the laserscan data is absolutely necessary. Not only for accuracy and better result overall, but to save artist time. Aerial LiDAR data should be used to begin any new track project as a bare minimum these days, or drone photogrammetry for little area. The ground level scan is next level. P.S. Just nice video from last turn at Sebring IRL
I want both , good quality & accurate physics & good quailty laser scanned tracks, there is no compromise only a sub standard experience if one or the other is missing makes zero difference if one intends to use the real world track or not (or real world car) many on the rf2 forum are yet to see the light. this subject crops up now and again, not a bad thing
I don't agree with this part: "What I would like to see is tracks that are difficult to distinguish from reality, otherwise it hardly seems worth the effort to make a real track at all."
Do you feel the same about Silverstone and new Watkins Glen which are also flat as pancakes? Because they are supposedly like that in real life. Or are you referring to bad modded tracks without road mesh in which case I agree it can be dealbreaker. Road surface is more important to me than layout accuracy. It doesn't have to have bumps at exact same places as in real track but it has to give some feedback to the wheel as it quite adds to immersion for me.
Getting the significant bumps is necessary. They are often rather important references for braking points, turn in points and so on...
Accurately replicated tracks are what I'm talking about. If a track is flat and lifeless and is reproduced that way, I'm happy. Probably should have clarified that one tbh although I wouldn't call Watkins a flat track. Smooth maybe but not flat. Road surface with bumps is paramount to give a track life. Combined with an accurate layout is what makes it simulate its real word counterpart.
