Help me finding the graphical difference...

Here is a video showing how RF2 is atm, Its far from perfect in the graphics department but it isnt terrible either. Also I think a video shows more then just a single screenshot, mistake I made earlier posting a screen to compare against a screen in the OP as its actual gameplay footage. Looks much better on my screen at 2560x1440 and 60fps compared to a compressed yt 1080p30 video but does show the things that RF2 does quite well and the things it doesnt as yet. It may be uploading still for a bit as I tried to use a high quality original hoping for the best YT encode.

Some tweaking is still needed and things will evolve down the line as graphics are not final as we all know. Iracing looks nice but its not all that special as a game engine and is based off an even older engine then RF2. Being based of the Papyrus GTL, Nascar racing engine with some evolution much like the ISI engine which goes back to even before the F1 games by EA.

Iracing have some very well modeled tracks and cars but as they are just fixed time of day and weather its much easier to make the graphics work as the artists intend with non changing lighting and environmental conditions.

 

iRacing uses mostly Targa textures. rFactor uses DDS. The two are chalk and cheese. They don't compare.

 

No, I don't! Not even God in person state something like this...

SIM physics are not subjective at all! Neither physics itself, unless you're talking about quantum physics and its averages.

When I steer my car in rFactor 2 I expect it reacts like a real car, and I can say that's quite close... unfortunately, that's not true in pCars. It's not subjective. It's mechanics.

 

As previously stated, if Niels Heusinkveld can state flatly, that so-called physics in car simulations and tire mechanics are subjective then, that, to me is the final word. Because he has a wealth of experience and a wealth of knowledge on the subject matter at hand and he is a renowned GURU.

Anyone expecting a racing simulation, that uses a PC as its platform to "reacts like a real car" has expectations that are unrealistic and delusional at best. It cannot be achieved!!!

At the very least, you would need {as stated earlier} an extremely expensive and complicated platform that is commonly used by Professional Racing teams.

This is why you will never find a post of mine on any forum criticizing the ISI team for how they've chosen to REPRESENT car dynamics and physics. Because it is an extremely daunting task and for what they have presented thus far, it is highly commendable. No computer-based racing sim will ever transmit to the user the sensations experienced when driving a real race car ..... never!!!

Well ..... maybe, if ever the price of the CXC Motion Pro II is lowered so that consumers can buy one -- then and only then will you experience a racing sim that is as close as possible to the real.

But coming from a platform which includes a souped-up PC\Laptop, steering wheel and other items that can be purchased from Wally World ..... then complaining and or attempting to debate perceived PHYSICS on forums is outright hilarious.

 

Man, I don't mean to offend you, but I don't know Niels So-and-So and I'm not interested to know.

What I know it's Newton Mechanic's is deterministic system: if you know the correct premises and the formulas to be used, the result should be the same forever.

A good simulator should take the larger number of variables possible, process and deliver the believable results possible, producing a convincing driving. Of course it's impossible to achieve a perfect real car set of reactions, but you can get close.

rF2 gets close. pCars doesn't. Simply like that!

 

That's true, but turning the science into an experience is a different matter which has different effects on different people. Being mathematically correct is not enough to complete the illusion.

You've surely seen how opinions can differ on sims quite wildly. You can play your favourite sim 100% indulged and involved in the motion of the mechanical marvel under your butt, but someone else will complain about how it feels loose, weird, distant, unrealistic, unnatural, etc. I guarantee for pretty much every sim on the market right now, there's people in both categories for them all.

People also react differently to different forms of feedback. Sims often use metaphors to replicate different effects, which work differently on different people. For example, head movement in the cockpit view can be a great tool to some for understanding more of the forces going through the car than just the steering column. Others will find it disorientating and difficult to work with.

 

Unless you missed his meaning

It's similar with graphics (which this thread is mostly about, may I remind you ) - majority of it is not subjective - textures, lighting, reflections, sky, etc. Things work the way they work and have certain optical properties in real world. Realism in graphics is all about recreating all that as accurately as possible. This is not subjective - it's pure science.

But once that image is rendered, it has to be presented on a display device. These will be completely different and may present the same image with different brightness, color saturation, etc. Also, some people will be watching this graphics in dark room, others in bright room. That makes a huge difference to perception as well.

For example - after sunset, Sun is below horizon, so it can no longer lit objects near you directly. But lots of light still scatter in atmosphere and can reach you from above. So sky is our only light source at the moment and what color that light has is pretty obvious, because we can all see that sky is blue.
So world is lit mostly by blue light after sunset (I'm ommitting artificial light sources), but as we walk, we don't really notice it. That's because we have no reference. If everything is equally blue, then it doesn't seem that blue anymore.

But when you present a photo on screen, and you see it among other graphical elements on forum, with your room around it, you will notice that there is a lot of blue light past sunset:




You could think of camera as of some kind of measurement device. What it will measure is blue and then you will have that blue photo displayed right in your face at some forum. It may not necessarily look realistic to us.

This is the subjective part.

I think game developers should recreate lighting accurately, even if it means producing pretty much blue images past sunset. What they should offer are HDR profiles, that will allow to adjust this realistic image to player's environment. This includes tone mapping, gamma correction and even changing color balance if one channel dominates (our sunset example).

If someone plays in dark room, he will be ok with more blue image in some circumstances, but for someone in bright room realistic lighting may look overdone and he needs the ability to compensate for that. Not by changing lighting, but by changing image postprocessing.


On a side note - if it would be up to me, I would remove all rendering-related stuff from HDR profiles in rF2 and put that stuff in "rendering profile" that would not be prepared by regular users, but people very familiar with real world lighting theories.


You have both subjective and objective parts in physics. If you're sitting in a real car, you can feel it's motion and your reactions will be based on it (among other things). In simulator you don't feel that much. With motion platform you will get some sensations, but with just steering whell you will get even less.
So similarily, you should adjust your simulator to your hardware and there is a lot of room for subjective feelings here. Some of us will want these missing feelings added to steering wheel's FFB as artificial effects (indicators of some events) but some of us prefer some feedback to be added to visuals (head movement) or sound (louder tire sounds than in reality).
Also, some people may say that if we are stripped of some sensations in simulator, physics should compensate for that by making cars easier to handle.

This part is a compromise - you either aim for accurate simulation or for making player's subjective experience as good as possible.


Physics, graphics and sound are to some point pure science with no room for subjective opinions. The final stage, where simulator meets human can be subjective, though and should be configurable.



Yet another long post from me, but it's been a crazy week and I had to release some pressure by dwelling in some of my favourite topics

Back to some modding work now...

 

Interesting read, thanks as usual.

 

Unlikely, since he explains the topic in great detail in his videos.

I believe high-end simulations in general can achieve a greater level of detail and realism graphically, than is the case when emulating physical characteristics, such as G-forces and the bodies reaction to those forces. Mainly because the variables required in rendering an image are considerably less than those required to represent\simulate motion and kinetic forces generated by surface resistance.

While I agree with much of what you've stated, I do however believe the underlying game engine is the determining factor in how realistically images are and can be rendered -- And that reality lends to which Sim graphically, is more superior.

I need to do a little more reading on what the platform capabilities and differences are between rfactor2 and Iracing. But I think its safe to state, that even if the graphics engine is capable of realistic 3D rendering with static objects, that it doesn't always translate to the same level of rendering quality with non-static images moving over a 3D landscape.

DEV Priorities also make a huge difference when trying to make comparisons, for example:

rFactor: Clearly placed Simulated physics before Graphics, as you would expect from ISI.

iracing: Seemed to approach their offering with a more balanced methodology -- but since they excluded the offline feature, I'm guessing that this gave them more time to focus on their online\Graphics\Sim physics all at the same time.

Project Cars: Clearly had graphics high on its priority list, and now that their image rendering is almost where they want it, you can now see them focusing more and more on better simulated physics. {per their last update}

Assetto Corsa Another title which I'm hearing nothing but good ....... but gotta try it first

Its awesome to have so many choices.

 

On the subject of graphics and rendering, this excerpt from a presentation by the MGS5 devs I thought explains some things really well. They're trying to achieve realism by using a physically based renderer. I think things like linear light space are already present in rF2, but I think some people here will still find it interesting.

Some parts in the video contain some minor violence. But I don't think there's anything else inappropriate in it.

http://youtu.be/Srh8MsbYPwI?t=35m41s