How track should look like

I guess that depends on the particular physics you are trying to simulate.

Simulating the buff and draft forces throughout a 140 car freight train along with the air brake system (different braking force through out that 140 car train) traveling over 50-100 miles of undulating track and simulating the tractive effort of the locomotives at the same time, not an easy task.

The physics of one car on one track, very doable depending of course on how far you want to go.

I wouldn't say that developing a game/rendering engine and optimizing it is any cake walk either, actually from what I've seen it's just the opposite.

Wow Bart you seem to have a better grip on what pCARS is all about then those of us who have been actually testing it? At this point no one knows how hard core the physics will be in pCARS in the end.

I do know from what I've read in the forums and what I've experienced with development builds they are putting effort into realistic physics and FFB.

http://www.wmdportal.com/projectnews/former-stig-ben-collins-impressed-with-c-a-r-s/

 

Thanks for the link to that site Bart. I was mainly impressed with what MikeMav was able to do with the projection screens, something I wouldn't have even considered before I looked at that video.

Something like this would be what I would consider ideal but I don't have $30,000.00 laying around for it, makes my rSeat EVO V3, Fanatec CSR Elite, Buttkicker2 and 32” HDTV setup look like a joke, lol -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndLxm-HTtrw

 

Having played those games I can easily say that they are merely showroom racing games. The actual driving part is so unrealistic and simple that the value of those games is mostly to grind more and more cars. That's it. It is also one reason why they run so well, there is lot less to be calculated. Other reasons for that are that you mostly see fields of only 6-10 cars, non-dynamic environment, simplistic damage, idiot AI...

We have to also remember that console developers have fixed platform where they can easily optimize as much as possible. Consoles will always be better in compatibility and performance wise for that reason. But does it make the games any better? Not at all.

Sure, I think they could make physics comparable with top PC racing simulations, but since they don't it doesn't make any difference.

 

GT5 has a dynamic environment- 24 hour day/night as well as dynamic weather- not all on all track but important ones like the Nurburgring 24 hour track, La Sarthe, Monza and Suzuka. And the max grid is actually 12-16 AI cars for offline and 16 Cars for online races. Even the head of Kunos (nKP) Stefano Casillo agrees that GT5's FFB and physics are very good (read the last online issue of AutoSimSport and on Page 40 for that quote: http://issuu.com/autosimsportmediallc/docs/autosimsport_vol6num1)

 

I've played GT5 with a steering wheel, and I must say that they are good. But good doesn't mean realistic, in this case it means that it is playable without much of a frustration. That's what it should be for mass marketed console game. I didn't know there was night/day cycle, guess I never bothered with those endurance races..

 

I've always thought that iRacing was the best looking racing sim (even better than pCARS) and I'm still annoyed that ISI didn't hire Hudson Kerr when it had the chance (he used to make rFactor mods, but then iRacing snapped him up and that's why the game looks so good).

 

Not with Forza4 or GT5 they've graduated from strictly arcade racing. If you have a decent wheel (I use a Fanatec CSR Elite and 6-speed shifter/clutch with Forza4 and GT5) the FFB is very realistic and better than a lot of PC racing games that we've seen over the last few years.

When you look at the graphics the lighting and shadows are better then a lot of PC racing games out there, not to mention the next gen consoles are right around the corner.

 

Very good post Bart with some great points

 

Some points are great. But about third of the statements are speculation or just falsehood. I don't want to answer each sentence because it would turn into big OT. You should consider to stop writing about things you have no idea, like my config, my preferences my fps, why ISI released beta etc. You dont't even know how old ISI is.

I suggest to focus on rf2 weakness because it is the only way to improve. Fact that it has a lot of improvements in various areas (including gfx) doesn't mean that existing flaws should be ignored. I do some points and comments because in my opinion these are missing as for 2012 product, and I will defend my stand anytime and anywhere. at this point I don't care that pCARS has worse physics, iR has another business model and AC has unknown multiplayer abilities. But all those titles has better gfx engine than rF2 (ok, iR is on the edge of being better). I just want to see rF2 giving better gfx and Im surprised that after such many years of development (not only rF2) the gfx is still out of date. period.

 

common guys)) the topic was about track surfaces, and why its not looking good yet (why no one makes great textures for track) and who can help ISI and community to make great texture for tracks (track, pits, garss etc.) and people can use them making different tracks

 

not bad at all)) need some work - become perfect (maybe when rf2 will be not beta) )))

 

when you're going to release the track?

 

Bart I can understand what you say about too many drivers on public servers who dont have a clue, and yes its actually soul destroying at times, I will add though seeing as you race on our servers, have you tried coming on our league megane server, as its mainly filled in the evenings with our members and close friends where the racing is so much better, we start round one this saturday evening 1900 uk time. and probably the rest of this week in the night there will be racers prac in there. As for graphics on this game, and I can give honest opinion as I currently have all the 3 games installed on my machine now, lets just say we all have varied spec pcs and most certainly have the games setup so different, and really its all down to personal preference, all 3 games have positives and negatives. And if we are all honest the winner in the end which is a shame will be the console in the very near future, money makes the world go round as the saying goes. So for now I am happy companies like ISI are making great content for us budding Pc gamers/sim racers

 

It's my man
Top notch modelling and texturing. But you know, we talked about it already: too pink. For them who don't know - it is gmotor issue. Also missing fresnel effect.
I'm sure you are looking forward for gfx engine changes to start rebuilding materials for whole track

 

What do you think about that? The Screenshot was taken from an old game.

 

Mid Ohio and any VLM track always looks good apart from the warm colour temp they use

 

No one said these are looking bad. Looks great but unreal. Or just like on some post-processed picture. not how you can see it in real life. OK... not how I can see

 

First srceen was from rFactor1. This one is from rFactor2.
@MaXym: You are right, it looks boring. Something is missing.



Edit: The bumpmapping on the curbs looks nice btw.

 

The real experience is showing that day after day. All sims / arcades obey this ratio: the better graphics, the worst physics.

Why? I don't know.