Personally i think the most difficult part to reproduce in game are the elevations, bumps and surely the banking on corners. Google give an HUGE help with his aerial maps but..you can't reproduce with 100% fidelity things i wrote before. This is the main difference between laserscanned tracks and "classic built" tracks. I think a CAD track file would be really useful for modders but..lol i think is a lot expensive I respect all modders work, and i really enjoy racing with our rF tracks, but in LaserScanned tracks you feel the difference.
Not always. Okayama on iR is very boring compared to simbins in my opinion. Again just my opinion. I'll never drive there in a real car so what is the difference to me if it's laser scanned? It's all about how you look at it. Look at iR right now. There is a huge complaint thread about Mosport having the same landmine for two years now and iR won't fix it. It's a laser scanned track but that still doesn't ensure quality.
Pretty much this. Laser scanning helps developers get the course as accurate as they "realistically" can. But that doesn't mean that the guy who takes that data and uses it to build the track, will get it right. laser scanning does has it's benefits. But it's not the end all be all of development tools. And, that's all it is really. It's a tool. An expensive one at that.
Well, IMHO is really difficult to build an innaccurate track using laserscanned data that's because this method give you an almost perfect data about elevations, banking, track layout ecc. Is more difficult to build a track starting with google maps aerial shots and watching onboards. This is not my point. Like wrote before, we're trying to simulate reality, so..we need maximum detail as possible.
DeDios, remember that laser scanner won't build a virtual track for you... there is always someone in that chain of track creation that have to interpret and use the data. That person may not use provided information as he/she should....so it is possible to build an innacurate track from such data but I don't see any reason, why someone would do that on purpose.
yes ok, but if you know what you're doing, is really difficult to do errors. It's like to reproduce a topographical surveying in autoCAD
You need lot of expensive stuff to REALLY simulate reality, not only a laser scanned track the "laser scanned" thing is more a marketing tool, it's clearly not enough if you want a perfect simulation.
I've assumed that point of simracing is to make realistic environment for racing - to only interesting one. But who knows. Maybe I was wrong. Let's look at Brno circuit @ rF. We still racing 2003 layout even if there was a lot of changes during last years. Is someone complaining? May your argument be used for something?
No motion simulator gives you accurate forces, including the best F1 simulators. They just provide different cues for what's meant to be happening. That doesn't make them, or your wheel, or laser tracks just marketing. Not that there isn't a ton of marketing as well, but that's another issue.
You guessed it ....the alternative I am referring to is nothing more than the existing non LS methods of the track designs ...... I support the school of thought that when implemented to the max, it can return amazing accurate results. Some of the existing tracks provide a fantastic experience and for all their inaccuracies, still succeed in giving the impression of what the real track could be like. As has been stated to death already, there is only one way to really know what a particular track is like. A sim with or without LS is only going to get you so close. I have no inside information on specific LS costs, processing overhead and requirements. None who are in the business have yet implied or claimed cost not to be a significant barrier. And the data is available apparently for those with deep pockets. I'm not against LS here .... I'm just trying to realistic about it. This is a good discussion thread.
Yes I know. But does it matter? LS is technique of creating track (or rather of gather data about track geometry). How is it related to if something is fixed or not? Every one knows that LS doesn't output ready to use rFactor track nor iR one. It needs processing by a creator. Creator may f* up the job, doesn't matter if it will be LS based or fantasy one. But again, LS gives most precise basis for creating accurate track. I don't know other method. I know that making it from photos, google or even from blue prints is not as accurate as LS. period.
Good discussion but few months ago Tim has already answered that question in Q&A topic. So we can only talk about it.
But it was a few month ago. A few days ago Tim didn't say about that anything. And I've heard another "rumour" about it However, whole discussion is about LS in overall, not about rf2 release content.
Nope, I just find it odd to quote someone and talk about something else in the reply. That's why I thought you completely misunderstood him, by taking "landmine" for some kind of feature of the race track
I wouldn't buy a game just because it had laser scanned tracks but then I wouldn't not buy a game because it didn't, I think laser scanning is a step forward for sim racing. Not so much for the surface but that it can take the guess work out of creating a track. We all want to race on realistic tracks with realistic cars - we wouldn't have fanboys working themselves into a lather otherwise. How many times in the past have we seen arguments over a sim producers track being more realistic than another, tracks like Simbin's Macau spring to mind along with many others over the years. In my opinion laser scanning gets played down a lot because it’s used by one developer at present on a project that a lot of sim racers love to hate - iRacing. Perhaps some of that hate directed their way is because laser scanning is so strongly promoted but then the same happened when GPS was used years ago when before everything was done by survey maps, sketches and photo's. Laser scanning to me as an end user is a way to collect better data so that we get a better re-creation of the track as GPS was a step up before it. There is of course margin for error, the way the data is interpretted by the creator but the data is there so that there may not be so many arguments like Simbin's Macua that a camber isn't right or the kerbs are too high etc etc. For me the worst thing to happen to rFactor were the convertor tools to convert tracks from other much older games. It enabled track creation using poor data. Those tracks from older games are the interpretation by the designers of the day using poorer quality data to begin with so who knows what design considerations they took at the time and how it affected the track layout. Up until the convertors the mod scene grew at a steady pace but then all of a sudden it was like an arms race where modders all wanted to be the first to convert a famous track over, be the first to create Brands Hatch or some other famous circuit. In that rush to be first sometimes the quality was ignored or a track was rushed out to be first and 'lay claim' to it and then keep re-visiting and updating the track to fix was left out in the rush to a first release. It made online racing chaotic and I spent more time managing downloads and keeping mods up to date than racing. I dare say in another 10 years we'll be arguing over another type of data collection and how laser scanning is still more than adequate
They wont give you G-force properly (because it's almost impossible) but there's a reason if pro drivers use that stuff, and motorsport teams drops big money for that. You wont simulate anything at home sitting on your chair, with the wrong FOV and/or a small Lcd even with a laser scanned track. That's why I said marketing, because it's not enough but people think it is.
