rf2 graphics quality expectations

And how exactly would you adjust "monitor colors" to fix this? The monitor RGB levels should be adjusted by a colorimeter or based on a reference pictures after you buy a new monitor, not per each game. Besides this issue has nothing to do with monitor adjustments. Below is a second comparison where you can clearly see the difference. Before the graphics felt washed out in daytime, now it doesn't, at least not for me.

View attachment 6596
View attachment 6597

 

Interesting. In the new build the tree shadows almost disappear and the front wheel rim of the ambulance loses all detail and becomes almost conical.

 

Thanks Tosch

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9bTj1KvPI&feature=youtu.be

Nothing wrong with these graphics, some of the best i have seen to date.. this track looks way better than any pcar track imo.

 

Really? Where would you be?

 

I agree here. With all settings maxed out, the sim looks pretty good. Problem is, even with a six-core processor and an HD7970, the top of the line AMD card today, and 12g of memory, I cant run it. I don't claim to be an expert, but shouldn't it run smoother with this hardware?

 

+1

 

Yes it is but only b/c of the opportunity costs. Imagine how freaking awesome rf2 would be and also how much faster it would be done if disregarded childish graphics for teenagers.

 

Which is exactly why they shouldn't have jacked with it.

 

And all of this complicates things and introduced bugs and affects build releases and distracts Tim and uses up developer resources and causes rf2 to take a decade to build and all for nothing. Ditch the graphics engine and finish the damn sim already.

 

Hmmm. In an alternate universe, wherein rFactor2 doesn’t exist in the same form that it does today, where would I be? To answer that, I will have to construct a physics algorithm to predict societal changes that would occur because of the paradigm shift that would be caused by the decision to keep rF1 graphics in rF2. To perform such an intense mathematical process, I’ll need to build a supercomputer. Just need to Pi the square of the hypotenuse, and carry that 2… As soon as I finish it, I’ll have your answer.

How the #### am I supposed to know where I’d be? I wouldn’t have spent money on rF2 if they made no attempt to advance the graphics system, and probably wouldn’t be discussing it at this forum. I’m really just saying that I don’t agree that rF2 would be better off if they kept rF1 graphics and only advanced the physics. I don’t think that would go over very well with the sim racing community.

 

You’re probably right. It would not be the easy way out to create a sim with awesome physics and graphics. Aside from those who make commercial sims for pilots and racers, sim developers are probably striving to find a way to bring these two things together. I have a layman’s understanding of why that is so difficult with a small development team, but today’s hardware should be up to the task. Someday someone will do it, and I hope they achieve great success because of it.

I am by no means disappointed that I spent money on rFactor2. As an amateur simmer and general gamer, I see great potential in the sim. I just hope that eventually it will be able to utilize the hardware I spent so much money on, and provide for me a graphical experience that will simulate real life as closely as possible. As a paying customer, I hope that ISI are sympathetic to my wants, and are listening. I also hope there are enough other sim racers who share similar opinions, which will make the effort worth-while for ISI. I agree with you about child teenager graphics. They are slow.

 

1

 

No. They didn't spend that much time on graphics, that is would make such a difference.
They said it themselves - graphics was not the priority.

So, despite new features in graphics, actual focus was elsewhere and only fraction of time they spent on development went to graphics.

And it's not like they wouldn't have to work on graphics at all. New features, like dynamic road, weather, improved lighting for night racing - these all require working on graphics and are essential to racing experience.
You need to visualize, that road is wet, that sky gets cloudy and that there are marbles on track. It doesn't need to be very pretty, but clearily readable, so you have no doubts what conditions you're driving in.

If you think working on graphics is just for teenagers, then you probably didn't give this topic enough thought.

 

You completely missed my point, I wasn't sayin that rf2 has the most perfect and complete physics, we aren't discussing what physics areas need improving in the sim, so your question on clutch simulation is completely pointless and irrelevant.

 

If you want extra what people call pretty graphics I would try AC or pCARS.

But if you want to drive ..............well


rfactor has never had " that pretty look" I do not think it ever will.

Personally I prefer the rF2 crisp clean lines of things like fences , houses and windows.

In puff powder sims the lines blur together you don't get that distinct look.

Can't explain it sorry for babblin'


lopl

 

WOW, no wonder this thread is 24 pages long, you would rather play Test Drive Unlimited, which is a retarded casual car video game, over a future RFactor 4 with the MOST AMAZING physics, because of TDU's massive superiority in graphics? LOL. This is the exact reason why this thread is going on for so many pages, many people just want decent, "good enough" physics, then the wow factor of the graphics can take care of the rest of the satisfaction for them. Well if that's how you think, then you got your priorities of a sim completely screwed up.

That is probably the most ridiculous comment if this entire thread.

We all want the best graphics, best sound, best physics, best ffb, best GUI, best gameplay options etc. of course we all do..... BUT, to choose to play/purchase a game with inferior physics, JUST BECAUSE it has better graphics? That just proves that you aren't looking for a simulation, that is completely cool as there are many different games for different peoples wants, but it proves where your priorities are. I mean I could do the same and go into shift, grid, dirt, TDU, even Forza and GT5 forums and argue and complain that the physics aren't even in the same planet as rf2, ir, ac etc. Pointless really.

If the superiority of a games graphics can completely convince you to play/purchase it over a true physics simulation game, regardless of how bad/sim-cade/arcade/wrong it's physics are, then what the heck are you even doing in a simulation game forum? That means you don't really care about physics and driving, as long as the game looks pretty enough, that is totally cool, but if that's where your priorities lie in a game, and if a game looking nice and pretty for u is where u get most or all of your fun from when playing it, then my friend, you are in the wrong genre of games.

There are many games with awesome state of the art graphics, have you seen the brand new Need for Speed? Very nice for looking at, especially if you have friends over and they like watching. You also have Ferrari Legends, Grid, Dirt, PCars, Shift, WRC, Codies F1, etc.

 

Hi all

Is it my imagination or has lime rock lost its sparkle since the last build update ( obviously it will be down on the ISI list for an update onthe last build of two )

Or could be my new gpu , I don't know

??????

 

+1000

 

@spinelli
good comment. i'm totally on your side. now that i have a wheel i can really judge physics better and it is interesting to see how more or less over night graphics have to me become a less important point than before. before i got the wheel i was just playing pcars. i bought the wheel for pcars and then a friend told me to really check out nkpro and rf2. i did and it was ****ing awesome. and then i tried also pcars with it and there the driving was just boring. decided to give them a couple more months to work on their stuff because for now i simply have more fun with rf2.
i may be in the minority but i think that pcars can achieve sim-level. it is just not there yet.