Minimum/Recommended System Specs for rFactor 2

In rF2 there will be an rF Config ? with DX7/8/9 and resolutions ?

And for Net Connexion to play online rF2 will need a better Bandwidth as rF1 ?

 

Clearly you're going to make your own opinion anyway, so why mention that?

No, the minimum shouldn't be selected based on the price of the card, it's based on what RUNS the software with everything off, just like every other video game on the market does theirs, just like every other video game always has.

Yes, the 3850 is from 4 years ago, but check out how it stacks up in comparison charts and how it performs in the real world with modern gaming titles. The i5 2500 I upgraded to last week is almost a year old also. Age means nothing, cost means nothing compared to actual testing and actual results.

It's absolutely nothing to do with targeting low specifications, it's to do with developing the software and seeing where it splutters and dies or where it runs good. Then seeing if you can optimize and doing it over and over again until the chips fall where they're going to and you have to cut out a section of your customers. I've personally gone well above the recommended, as I said in an earlier post, because "good" isn't what I want, I want everything on, everything comfortable, and a screaming framerate.

Please cease to make comments like fanboys, etc. If you want to be a part of this community when the title actually gets released.

 

Specs arrived within days of the suggestion that they would show up soon? Wonder if beta will follow just as soon relatively speaking? I would rather rfactor2 just show up when ready, without an announced launch date of sometime in the future!

Forgot to mention: this is great news! Thanks

 

You know how much i love Nordschleife

 

Cheers Tim, I just about survive in the GPU (which may hold me back for the high end stuff) but have a decent enough CPU and RAM so should be fine until I upgrade next Spring:

9600GT GPU (512mb)
Intel 3ghz Core 2 Duo
4gb RAM
Win 7 64-bit

 

From what I'm told it's the CPU which is the main issue with the specs. You may be able to switch 'all off' on the GFX and get by, but you can't turn off physics... Which is where the CPU comes in. So yup, you should be able to run OK.

 

nice thanks Tim

 

Yeah that's true, a friend of mine with a 64bit OS get stuck on modding because of this silly 32/64bit issues. Please pretty please ISI update your dev tools for the 64bit users modders need that really.

 

Thank you for the specs, Tim.

Would a 6-core AMD Phenom be overkill for an RF2 specific upgrade? Might it ever use 6?

 

What I am being told is that the plugins use part of the engine, and the engine is 32bit. It HAS been mentioned, however, as a project for the future (both the engine and plugins), but here's the bad news, I certainly would not expect it soon.

 

If you're going to upgrade and you have the money, overkill all you can. Even if it's not for rF2's direct benefit, your OS might run a little leaner on the CPU because of it and that might help rF2 in the foreground. Besides, rF2 isn't a short-term thing like rF1 was in many ways, so upgrading for the future is nice.

 

3.1GHz Sandy Bridge CPU is faster than 3.7GHz Phenom II when using only a single core. If rFactor 2 can't use more than 2 cores, then that puts current 6-core and upcoming 8-core AMD cpus at a huge disadvantage.

 

Pretty sure it's DX9 only; I remember seeing that somewhere at some point. Tim can probably confirm, but anyone who still needs to run DX7/8 probably isn't realistically expecting to be able to run rF2 on their system anyway. (or shouldn't be )

As much as 4/6/8 cores are great for multitasking, a lot of programs struggle to use more than one or two. rFactor's entire physics engine is probably pretty self-reliant; you can't go shooting off to calculate one thing until something that necessarily precedes it has been calculated, and I would guess at best you could split it into a 'main' thread, and a supplementary one that does unrelated things. You probably wouldn't need, or benefit from, more than 2 because the main one takes a relatively long time and you can get everything else done in a single thread while waiting for it.

It's a very different situation to, say, turning hundreds of .wav files into MP3s, where each file can be processed completely independently and you can throw a thread onto each core, yielding a performance increase nearly equal to the number of cores.

That being said, over time they might be able to split things up more, especially if the load balance changes a bit with modders pushing into specific areas, but even with 4+ cores being utilised there'll probably always be one main one that creates a bottleneck.

I'm all too aware of it with my getting-rather-aged CPU having a handy 4 cores... but at only 2.33GHz each

 

There is no DX7 or DX8 support. It says DX9 in the minimum requirements.

 

ok dx9 in the minimum requirements, but how about dx10 and dx11?

 

Interesting reading, seems to me rf2 has roughly the same spread between minimum and recommended as 1 did just slightly higher up the scale. Always nice to know what will be needed before release as it gives people time to upgrade and a good idea of which parts in their systems to replace and what to replace them with. Thanks for the info.

 

From what I've read, rF2 will only use DX9 in the near future.

And this recent activity by Tim has got me pretty damn excited about the game. Hopefully ISI can get some new screens out soon!

 

A 32-bit OS can access 4GB of RAM and a 32-bit user-mode process can have a virtual address space of 2GB on a 32-bit or 64-bit OS.

Complete info can be found here.

 

I wouldn't say that. If you do it right supporting two processors is no different than supporting dozens of them. It is really an issue of supporting mulitple threads in a general way. I have written apps that have dozens of them, sixty or more, and we have no issues with the number. In ISI's case they are probably setting the processor affinities of the threads to the physical processors and that's a little different. I never do that in my apps. I let the OS's scheduler do its thing and that works well - we see very good scaling.

 

Tim, thank you for the spec info.
My question is, what would be the system specs for running a server?
I currently run 4 very stable servers on 1 box that can't even actually run the game due to lack of gpu ram.

Also, thanks for the TomsHardware reminder.
For you other guys, it's interesting to note that if you look at their cpu and gpu hierarchy charts, they recommend going up at least 3 tiers to see any real difference. (read: or waste of money)
GPU Hierarchy Chart
CPU Hierarchy Chart