Rf2 graphics turned down will look worse than rf1 graphics maxed out?

Been racing rf1 and graphics look great maxed out and I am getting 250 fps and it made me wonder if rf1 will look better than rf2 on systems that have to turn graphics down?

 

It really should, I mean if you turn textures way down they will be looking quite poor, like those 240p youtube videos that have been recorded with a potato, alone that will make big change to looks as with rF1 maxed out will have sharp and good textures.

Having texture filtering of trilinear certainly must look worse than 8*AF at any game too.

If it would not look worse, then there would be not much change in performance when lowering settings, but there is, so it seems to be working properly for me.

 

View attachment 4062 View attachment 4063 heres on minimum settings on 1680-1050

 

Thanks for the replies. Hopefully optimization will get the frame rates up. I almost wish they didn't mess with the graphics so that people with lesser PCs can still enjoy good graphics. But they can stay with rf1 until it dies b/c rf2. Oh well.

 

The tricky thing is that many people will be hoping for the newer versions of software to make use of their new computers and graphics cards. A well coded game will have options to turn down settings to run on lower spec setups but in the end people with older computers will just need to except that they need to turn things down if they arent willing to upgrade their computers for newer software. Optimizations will improve performance overall but also some new added features may degrade performance once enabled. Many people are hoping for RF2 to utilize modern PC hardware much more then it currently does so its a real battle for developers to make something that looks great on latest spec setups but also run at a reasonable level on older machines.

Even all the things you dont see in terms of physics, as these get more complex they need more computer power so increasing physics complexity and keeping the graphics the same as RF1 would make rf2 run slower then RF1 and the base phsysics are something you really shouldnt be able to turn down in a simulator IMHO.

The more the simulator does the more it will rely on faster hardware so there may be some people that unless they upgrade their computers will end up enjoying older software like RF1 much more until they upgrade their computer.

 

I do not understand graphics in rF2 ... She is very poor and heavily inhibits computer. My settings are low and mean, I cut the shade. And then I get about 30 FPS.
At the same time, the newly released F1 2012, I have set all high, the maximum effect it, the graphics there just lovely sight than rF2. EFFECTS of the wheels, the outgoing particles, are striking, the contrast of light and shadow is excellent, a sense of depth and volume, one feels the depth of space.

I never will believe that in rF2 many resources spent on the physical model (physical model works in all directions is not correct).
Iracing good balance between graphics and physics model.

 

Great explanation, Matcerv. Makes sense.

 

best way to check the contrast of this image into a monochrome color ... I can see when you turn on HDR volume is lost, all the colors are equalized, and you turn off the HDR shadows all disappear. The contrast is not in the schedule or in the shadows or reflections.



pCars

 

F1 2012 is not a great comparison as the physics are very basic and 95% of the resources are spent on graphics, also codemasters is a huge team with a huge budget so have many more man hours into the graphics engine and 3d in general compared to what ISI have available. If ISI had the same budget then they could up the graphics to those sort of levels but still when using a much more detailed physics simulation this surely will have a large impact on overall performance compared to anything made by codemasters at that level.

I dont see I racing to be any better then RF2 in terms of graphics and it hasn't changed much since Nascar or even GPL graphics code to be honest. Much like ISI havent moved forward huge amounts in the graphics department since the f1 games but codemasters sell their games purely on graphics so the need to at least try and get that right .

If ISI had the resources and budget of codemasters they still would not put such a large focus on graphics, sure it would be nice to have prettier graphics but the physics are by far the most important aspect of a racing sim. Id much rather the graphics take a lower priority over physics any day, once that balance shifts you go away from sim to arcade. The main difference between a sim and arcade game is this actually, games designed for mass market are highly prioritized towards flashy graphics and physics are almost an after thought. PC Hardware is still at a level were the developer needs to make this choice and its not possible to have the best of both worlds with current consumer hardware I think.

Many of these things such as excessive motion blur and such have no need in a sim, as unless Im drunk I dont see that kind of blur and surely if that's how you see the world from the drivers seat you shouldn't be behind the wheel lol. If codemasters was to change to a sim then they would lose most of their customer base, these games try to simulate the act of being an F1 driver without ever needing most of the skills a real driver needs by simplifying the driving to a level that even a 5 year old can win a grand prix at the hardest level.

A true sim tries to simulate the actual driving as close as possible to reality so you need a similar skill set to be able to drive at the same level as the real world drivers do. To the average racing game fan they find this too hard and would give up and go find another game that makes them feel like a real f1 driver, they dont care if its realistic they just want it to be easy.

This physics simulation takes a pretty large chunk of processing power, which arcade type games utilize as part of the graphics rendering system and sims try and maximize this. While still providing decent levels of graphics but to have the latest greatest graphics then surely the physics simulation would need to be simplified or performance would suffer.

 

You can balance the quality of the graphics and physics. Balance in rF1 was this. But rF2 is not justified at all, more degradation, even in the beta testing.

If the graphics are not satisfied there is a great physical model. Example LFS S2.
If the physical model is terrible, there are great graphics. Example F1 2012.

In rFactor2 not like physics and graphics are terrible. No balance. There are only a stringent requirements for PC.

 

Graphics department DOES NOT work with PHYSICS.

That being sad, they may not throw that much money at it as they do towards physics.

 

RF1 is final though so its hard to say where RF2 will be once its Gold, there is lots of work to do still everyone can see that and until its at a level ISI will be happy enough with it will remain beta. Many times Tim has said they dont want too much publicity yet as its still a fair way from where they want it to be. I dont think there is any aspect of RF2 that ISI would say is all that close to final in the v107 build so there will be work done on just about every aspect before gold.

 

At the moment, I convert a 3D model of Iracing Oxford Plains Speedway (consider this my announcement on the new track in rFactor2).
Great will be the test for visual behavior suspension and a physical model as a whole.
rFactor1 not justify physical model, all the little bumps in the turns or does not affect the behavior of the car.

 

True but there is a balance in where both the financial and performance budgets are spent, so this will determine where this balance will be focused. All the money in the world wont allow a developer to have the absolute best graphics and physics on consumer level computers. They need to make this decision and then balance both teams to get the end product, you can always throw more money at the problem but the average computers of end users are a pretty fixed limitation which only time will give them more computer resources to play with. Until the day where a home computer can render a real world with performance to spare this will always be an issue that each developer will need to balance.

 

Converting a track from Iracing wont give you the same results in both as they need to be optimized for the software its being run on, the track is optimized for I racing and I dont know how the physics work there, most likely they will be using some form of terrain data files too and these may make a huge difference to how the cars physics work on the set track. You would be better off making a scratch built track and run them on both sims rather then one built for either to compare on the other due to any code it may have built into the game or track that will make it an unfair comparison to the one you are converting it to.

Dont base any testing on visual behavior of suspension as this isnt accurate its just a basic graphics effect that doesn't necessarily reflect the physics model. Use motec data if you want to compare them an get any idea of physics. And to top it off I racing is well after release with a few patches so trying to compare mature finished software with an early beta is a little pointless dont you think.

 

in any case, scanned track in rF2 is something ...
without MoTeC already be seen in how believable will influence the behavior of track irregularities of any series, the body or F1.

 

Just dont think the guys from Iracing would be quite as happy to see it, they may try and send some lawyers to pay you a visit in Russia lol.

 

then it will not be published to the masses.

 

You are correct in your assumption. Physics can use only one core of your CPU.
Problem is in wrong-designed gfx engine. It still utilize optimisations needed 10 years ago, when cpus was more powerful than gfx cards. Nowadays optimisations must be done in other way. With current builds CPU is a bottleneck for gfx card. That's why our systems are overloaded being still far away from expected gfx performance.

 

+1
they need to optimize gfx eventually, with the graphics of 2005 in 2012+ this is not good