rf2 graphics quality expectations

Maybe I should have said build by build because day by day is not visible to us end users. And most builds touch graphics. Actually can't remember any build that hasn't changed something graphicswise.

 

http://rfactor.net/web/rf2/devscorner/rfactor2-build-notes/
OK every build does something with graphics, but most the time it's bugfixes (sometimes fixes of things that worked in rf1 already) , there are literally only a few unique lines regarding improving overall look.

 

The last build changed color tone quite a lot, from View attachment 6589 to View attachment 6590 . The difference is more noticeable in practise than these screens tell, now the daytime coloring is pretty good and not "washed out". Lack of good-looking third party tracks is hardly something that gets better by ranting about it here. The situation was the same for rFactor a year after its release, I remember driving on mostly poor-looking quick conversions.

 

This is well said, and my point exactly.

Such mod could be made for rF2, something that has great realistic physics but graphics are non-textured, color coded, simple polygon graphics with occasional noise, blips and beeps as sounds. I am sure we'd get awesome fps's, thus the most accurate physics simulation. We'll see how many would play that.

Point is, there is nothing wrong in having nice graphics. But it should not come in expense of the physics part. Nowadays, we don't have to compromise because there is separate hardware for calculating graphics (GPU) and physics (CPU).

 

The more you over-exaggerate the less sense it makes... As I have said, there is nuance, but apparently when you are feeling offended that seems lost all of a sudden?

Very true in theory. In practise, how many sims do we have which reflect this?

 

I think the major concern what people have with rF2 is that the graphics do look too bad compared to the performance they put out. I personally don't have any problem how rF2 looks, but as such I would like it to be consistent and non buggy all around and give much better fps. With such graphics it would be nice to see better fps, or with these fps's I would like to see better graphics. But maybe that will change, you never know.

 

It did but it brought new bugs to, go to vette for example, free exterior look, turn the car that one side will be to sun an other one shadowed than look to the shadowed wheels, turn the camera and you will see some strange colors happening to the tyres and this goes for many dark textures now, even in cockpits.

This is the problem im trying to say, rf2 does get some better GFX updates with new builds BUT that brings new bugs and once something is working with next build its beeing crashed again same is it with reflections wich many still have the problem, very visible on ISI windows as reflections are completly disorted there and this is right now never ending circle that doesnt improve it.
We need part of part in the GFX to be finished so it could be moved to next one but 10 parts in gfx are getting updates and they just interfear allways and sometimes the shaders are just beeing done for the next new content and than the old content suffers from it but this is wrong, it should rather be updated and fixed with the probles that it allways do, rather than adjusting them to new content.

 

And how is that bad thing? The way I see it is if they could do that with rF1's old graphics engine tweaked then new engine of rF2 should be capable of providing even better results. Maybe not right now but hey it's under constant development. This is how I see it and I'm very confident about the future. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not. We'll see in time.

 

We will see but in the meantime, To Hell We Ride (if HDR )

 

you're right! it looks great! (could be better) but looks great!!

 

There is still a compromise - manpower.

No one is born with knowledge - it takes time to gain it.

So you can have all the hardware possibilities in the world, but you cannot make people learn twice as fast. They will be good with physics, good with graphics, or average with both.

And trust me, graphics is a big subject as well.
It's not like you can shout at someone: "hey, make better graphics" and they will do it. They need to learn first or hire someone who has this kind of knowledge.
In case of bigger companies, hiring someone is not a big problem. With smaller companies it's different. These are usually guys who have worked together for years and getting someone new aboard is not often such an easy decision. You need to select that person very carefully, because your personal future (literally your job) depends on it.

And sometimes it's not even possible due to other factors. I once made a joke that if ISI had hired me to program their graphics engine, then you wouldn't see another build for 2 years.
Yeah, if I was to work on their engine, I would probably start from scratch in several areas.

Now, if you are company manager - do you take someone from outside and trust him enough to throw away years of your work? And what if he's wrong? What if he can't deliver what's expected of him? Would you take that risk?

It takes time to create something great, but if you run out of money, you go bankrupt and your "dream project" will never see daylight, anyway.
So sometimes it's better to deliver what you can deliver, instead of planning large jump - because it's possible you will not make that jump and you will fall.

Rich company can afford to make any jump they want.


So yeah, technical possibilities are there, but welcome to the real world, where time is money

 

Great post, cleared lots of things for me.

 

It's a general view and doesn't cover everything.
Doesn't ever refer directly to ISI, actually. Each company may have it's own reasons.

If' company's goal is constant growth they will be hiring people and adding any marketing value to their products they can think of. They will also be looking for new markets and therefore offer products that target these markets.

In case of niche products, growth may not be a good idea for a company - once you filled that limited market you may wake up in situation where you have too many employees and too little regular income, because customers already bought your products and aren't looking for anything new at the moment.

I bought my G25 several years ago.
Logitech could be tempting me with G27, G50, G150, G558936, G558932 "Supreme edition", but I will not buy any of these, since I already have a wheel that suits me.


If small company would want to increase their income, to support all those new employees, they would have to look for another, bigger market. And they would have to compete against other companies in that market.
I can understand that some small companies may not want to go there.

 

So far, for me rF2 works with TriDef 3D and I've been driving stereoscopic since I first installed it... and the step up from rf1 doesn't really lie in the graphics, it seems to lie in the physics of it all, which is what I am looking for. I would've liked to get a chance at Project Cars because from all appearances it could be the one that offers rF2 a challenge because of good physics combined with superior graphics. However after watching quite a few PC videos, while I can't get a feel for it myself, I can't help but notice clues that suggest it will be far more arcade-ish (if anyone here have tried it please do correct/confirm that I'd love to know)

My only actual beef with rF2 so far is there's no built in stereo (saves a lot of headache when the software just has its own native way of getting to it) and it's got major issues with TriDef 3D, which I have to work around all the time (ex.: I need to switch to Power 3D or just turn the 3D off while in the UI, and once I'm on the track I fire up the full out 3D (non power-3d))... but at this point it's become routine to the degree where I don't notice the encumbrance anymore.

Last but not least I'm actually surprised at how many of the shaders fully work with TriDef 3D rendering in true stereo. Shadows, particles, some reflections... there's a lot of stuff that just keeps working while in oany other games, would not or worse - would render in mono. This gives a superior experience to other driving sims I can use with depth perception, and I'd even say I can get things up to par with F1 2011 in rF2 in the context of using TriDef. Not to mention rF2's framerate is wayyyy smoother than most sims I've tried. S3D is a demanding addition!

Bottom line it's the driving I like, the fact rF works with stereo-3d and the fact that the focus is especially being put on the quality of the simulation and not on gimmicks akin to gaming. I personally have yet to find another sim that feels as much as a car as this, and rF2 just upped the ante on that title.

 

Hi,
Could one of you chaps explain to me why and how the Lime Rock park track creates the HDR profiles dramatic, realistic and none but the other tracks don't? Also, is 'none' the same as having just the blank field in the HDR profile settings that I see in all the other tracks?

Thanks

 

All tracks have hdr profiles but to show up in the list the profile must be "ProfileVersion=1.01". The older profiles don't work anymore because of a change in the lightning code.
"None" is the default profile and should be the same as a blank field.

 

Ok, I take it back, not so great post then

 

LOL... again. You don't need a build for it, just set your monitor colours instead. Those palliatives change nothing.

 

and I don't have either of those two!

 

That's only logical.

If time is money, then when you don't have time, you don't have money, right?