I do wonder about some comments where folk declare rf2 to be ugly, for me visually its fine when maxed out. Full settings and it looks really nice I think (huge step up over rf1). Sure some car textures really could do with being bumped a bit and various other things. The issue I still find is performance, I have to lower settings a lot as the fps is simply to low to enjoy anything close to the highest settings.
Re.rf2 graphics Think the shadows really need sorting out ( around the cars especially underside whilst they are going around the track) & the resolution of the car textures & overall optimisations/performance These are the things I notice that's negative about the current rf2 graphics
I would say lighting and shaders are most important. Precision of shadows or optimizations are technical issues which will be improved in time.. At worst we will buy more powerful hardware. but with incorrect lighting and shading, nothing will help us.... except of KSzczech
Given the choice I'd prefer ISI to mainly concentrate on physics / ffb / tire model though 1st (which I assume thy are mainly doing ), graphics (& sounds) are important though but for me secondary I like build 101, would be great if the next build is an even bigger & better one -think ths will inspire alot of confidence accross the board. Again I'm really not interested in even more content at the time -just getting rf2 up to scratch then getting it to gold is the important thing in my mind. About 10 nice looking YouTube vids each showing a different track (including non ISI ones ) will be convincing enough re.content initially. Rf1 has more content than any other when the 3rd party mods are taken into consideration, rf2 will no doubt be the same
Models and many textures are indeed converted from GT Legends, but the stuff that really matters (physics) isn't.
as far as I'm aware RF2 has always been in some sort of development as the engine, physics etc were already being updated (since rF1) for rFPro and then about 18months prior to Beta (?) the attention turned more to RF2. I dont believe it was a sudden decision to say "lets start work on RF2 today", it was just always ongoing until more focus turned to it.....repeating myself somewhat but you get the idea! I maybe wrong, the above is from my beer injured memory banks!
We have answered those concerns a few times. They're not going to change, or be fixed, until the gfx engine and post fx stops changing. It's also very possible that the tracks which currently look good, will have similar color issues when that happens, until they are corrected as ours have to be. March, 2009.
So, this really should say it all. Clearly, they are still pretty darn early in the development stages, so I would just stay tuned. Until the engine is fully sorted can you really start hitting textures and other eye candy. I think things are going to get much much better. We also have to wait until more mods are released because ISI is putting out a platform for us. The modders really are the ones who will take advantage of the new changes. This is just a platform for modders, so if the platform is perfected, the rest is in the hands of the modders. We have not seen a lot of content from modders yet because, well, the engine and other elements haven't been finalized. Once the well-known modders get involved in development, the game will really shine.
early development stages...modders cant take advantage of this if the engine and other elements haven't been finalized. they need it as much as ISI to make the mods to there best ability... once the game is released then i think you will be right... but till then you will need some1 or a modder to understand there program better than ISI do
Interesting. Not sure why, but I have always assumed that only the graphics were used from GTL. I didn't know it was even possible to convert physics btwn different engines...
Fix a "few" bugs, slap in a set of Nations skins for all 1960s and go Gold I reckon. I even like the Nissan for cryin' out loud and I don't think I have ever really liked a import mod in 4 other sims off hand. lol lol rFactor2 for me has " Just Enough of the Right Stuff " Really I don't care fix the buggy bits I be happy as it is and whatever modders are capable of doing. If the Early tracks are any measuring stick ....well say no more.
Just to chime in here .. I read alot of posts about gpx,physics, this n that ectt.., alot of exelent points made .. However somthing i dont see mentioned The online racing is Frikin Awesome! and better every build imo , seems to me ISI is fixing alot of what's been wrong at the user end, performance, the actual playing n' driving of the sim, with 101 I have been able to turn off all the tweeks some of us had to "trial and error" through to stop studder , pausing ectt... max rendered frames 0-1 bla bla, with 101 I took it all back to defalt and getting 60 fps and smooth .. so with that getting closer to refined I bet we will see alot of the other important things that might be on the back burner addressed that have been mentioned .. Its like if rf2beta was a car in your garage you would tune it up and make sure it runs right before you did the painting and crome lol or started relying on ot to get you through 5pm traffic or do a burn out in your neighbors driveway or hit the sat night drags you get the idea...... For me I see nothing but progress in the right direction and am already addicted the the racing and dont buy into the negitive views shared by some as mentioned in OP ... Rock On ISI !
It is possible to convert physics from GTR, GTR2, GT Legends, Race07/GTR Evolution/Race On/etc., heck even Shift 1 and 2, since at the core all of them use either a straight up or a modified version of the isiMotor engine, and the vehicle definition files are almost identical. Still, you won't get a car that handles identically in both games if you just take a car and copy the values as they are, all of them seem to handle the data somewhat differently so that it's pretty obvious they've tweaked the engine to some extent in every game. And besides, he only meant graphics. The physics etc. aren't converted in HistorX, they're done from scratch.
Thank you for the reply. So it sounds like you are trying to create a single HDR setting which will be used on all tracks, then you'll adjust the track textures to suit this setting once it is finalised (rather than adjusting HDR on a per-track basis). This makes a lot of sense, even if getting the HDR setting right is proving to be difficult. I was worried that we'd end up with some tracks having realistic colours and some looking like cartoons - at the moment I use an ENB setting simply to lower the saturation of the whole image when I drive rFactor2 (it helps a bit but it's not ideal). Nice to hear you're on top of the colour issue.
I don't really care about graphics RF2's graphics are fine on a basic level and modders will be able to make things look nice regardless of the engine ( look at some of the GPL and RBR tracks out there) I just want the physics to be decent as that's why I am playing a driving sim and at the moment RF2 is really lacking with the tire model and how it conveys the car movement and grip through FFB ( on a g25 at least) Its not an easy problem, for example i racing has massive issues with many of its cars as well often in the same places as RF2 , low speed grip and car behaver when driving at the edge of grip and how cars move and act when at the extremes of movement. I don't doubt that RF2 has the right values plugged into the tires and probably has the most advanced tire model for how tires behave when driven safely or within specific boundaries. But its when and how tires lose grip whilst really pushing at low or high speed that RF2's tire model totally falls apart and that's where the crux of racing is Interims of driver experience and pure enjoyment of each car. Racing is all about finding that end point of the tire and then keeping it just below that but still having a margin past that allowing you to decide if you are going to put some extra ware on the tires for a faster corner. The ability to test and be on that limit all the time every corner is also the crux of what it is to race a sports car and the reality is you have to learn the limits of each car before each race in RF2 or you will end up flying of the track or driving into people. ( if you want to test this load up a rally style road stage where you have to place the car perfectly and you can see how pore things are compared to NKP) On the subject of FFB due to the fact most people playing the sim are sat in a static chair they will rely on abstract FFB information of the cars weighting and rear wheel weighting to know how much grip they have left or if the car will allow for more or less gass , brake, turning angle mid corner. again this seems to be very much missing from RF2 I can agree with the philosophy of trying to simply replicate the front rack but in the end on consumer hardware i think its the case that users need at least the choise to bleed in data that in realty would come through u bum and not the wheel. ISI have gone over some of the points I bring up and I know they are still working on things. Software in development is always open to change and sometimes a game can go from unplayable to amazing with a couple of lines of code ( not that RF2 is unplayable) So i am open minded that RF2 will get better. Having said that in its current state I don't think the pro leagues or competitive non casual sim racers will really enjoy RF2 Personally if RF2 stays the same I will probably spend all my time with AC assuming its similar or better than NKP. Mind you who knows some modders might fudge RF2 physics to make it more acceptable to drive , in the same way GSC and many RF1 mods transformed that simulation ... I'm not really sure the commercial worth of trying to appeal to hard core sim racers anyway RF2 seems to be really popular with people that are content to drive a slow FWD car that requires minimum skill to race ( though can still be fun to drive in a race ) and most consumers seem to like Forza and GT5 even though they are not close to realistic. There must be what 3,000 people that are at a top level of sim racing who will really notice the super subtle things , take RBR for example that was a total flop despite offering unbelievable consistent and deep physics ( with some general issues ) . As a company simulation developers might as well build a solid simulator but not bother to much about the finner details , let moders with free time do that ( maybe that's ISI's plan ) baah I'm going back to my cave
RBR was a flop? In what sense? After so many years, when people want a decent rally sim, they always turn there?
