That is even better then. Actually, the paragraph he quoted is correct. It is the second paragraph that is debatable but I don't need to. I understand what was said.
Thanks Tim, I was just curious as someone who hasn't done any modding how detailed the track surface could be compared to something like iRacing which markets their track surface technology very hard. I've been following posts on these forums and keeping up to date on the Facebook group but not seen much that explains how it all works but Michael's post has given some good information.
I understand. I was working at iRacing when they made that breakthrough, so that was the context of my post. It sometimes seems that people think that once someone has done something, nobody else will be able to do it, or better it. The fact is that rF2 won't come with any laser scanned tracks (at this point). This doesn't mean it isn't possible. It's just that we, like them, would have to make you pay for it, and honestly, being affordable is extremely important. ISI does it's own thing... If they didn't, rFactor wouldn't have even happened. The fact I was with iR is also why I was able to comment with 'authority' on the costs involved for laser scanning, as I'm one of the very few in this little niche genre of ours to have been with two devs. My ISI knowledge for tracks isn't up to par yet though, but I think going through the beta and modding process with the rest of you should fix that.
I know I'd find it interesting and maybe others would if something could be put together like the video on the tyre deformation and the lighting effects video's but detailing how rFactor 2 would perhaps take us a step forward from rFactor 1 and the kind of detail that could be incorporated into a 'surface layer' so to speak to brings the tracks to life be they laser scanned or not. iRacing keeps getting mentioned because they heavily promote that side of their sim (and of course your previous work with them) but I was far from thinking they had some kind of technology or know-how that was unattainable by anyone else, far from it. With ISI's history of working on professional simulators it seemed logical that they have this ability but how they employed it and how much of that know-how has filtered through to a commercial project is interesting. Graphics are great, its all part of the immersion factor but it would also be nice if you can round up some of ISI's boffin's to explain some of the 'nuts and bolts' of the engine too and how it works to giving us a better 'feel' on the virtual road.
Looking at what iR actually have on their site, it's very short on specifics. There are driver quotes talking about 'inch perfect' etc but I think legally you can have people basically saying "I think xyz" and because it's their opinion it doesn't come back to bite the company if it's not true. People seem to assume a lot about what makes it into iR, and I'm not sure there is enough transparency in that game for them to actually know for sure. And then people talk about it feeling bumpy etc, which at racing speed might equate to a bump every few metres at best... not inches. But die-hard one-eyed fans of any game will talk about how great it is until they're blue in the face, and won't accept that anything else is as good, so it doesn't really matter. I think rF2 will be a great addition to any level-headed sim racer's collection, and only time will tell how good the tracks can be.
I actually re-watched the iracing video on their tracks recently. Perhaps it was from the era that Tim was there for, but it only said that the tracks you race on are "wrapped over" the scan data." They seemed to be deliberately non-specific about the resolution of data 'actually' present. 3:23 on the video below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqLEIE8MBk
iracing is proof that having laser scanned tracks isn't a big part of the sim racing experience, because iracing sucks in every other area.
Well, it depends... if you have weird physics then super-duper laser scanned tracks won't make it better... but if your physics are OK, then there is huge (for me at least) difference between track on which every bump is different, you notice those small camber changes, every kurb is specific and the same track which is more or less flat, with added fake bumps. Of course, YMMV so I agree you might disagree
Another page or so and I'll want to shut this thread down. I'd like to limit threads to 15 pages or so to make things a little easier on the database and users eyes. You'll be fine to start another. Just letting you know.
Default options must be a lot smaller... Let me change them and then they can probably go a lot longer than this setting for 15. Thanks for pointing that out.