just an idea, throwing it out there but...perhaps keep HDR on? I get the feeling you're never gonna be satisfied with rf2s graphics, every post of yours is related to it! make do with what you got and simply await future updates, otherwise you're gonna be kept disappointed for a long time.
the patience comes to an end, all топчатся on one place, and visual improvements it isn't visible. In 2 months, after an exit of new Build No. 2.... difference of 100% we won't see. Through how many years it is possible to look at 60% the end result? ... I don't ask much... Simply at least that adequately would look. And as a result everything only worsened even in comparison with the last brilliant rFactor1 project.
All ingenious - is simple. To take graphics of rFactor1 and slightly to correct. Anything, unreal. Instead of evolution, received rFactor2...
Well well, shoot me - i have to admit that i haven't read the tons of previous posts about the subject.
I started up trusted old RF 1 to compare image quality. I think there isn't that much difference, and that's not good enough after 7 years of development. Cars and environment in RF 2 look dated. Special effects like smoke would have been fine 10 years ago, but not today. Physics are improved though. The cars feel more alive, and show inertia. So i'm happy about that part. I found out that i can run a field of 20 cars with most graphic settings on max (except special effects and shadows) on my humble Intel core 2 duo cpu at 3.14 Mhz, and AMD 4890 gfx-card getting fps around 50 on average when there are cars around. So performance is good too. I guess it has with the missing eye candy to do. I would like to mention two big fps killers: road- and environment reflection, so i leave them off. Besides they don't seem to do anything to speak of. Other settings are on. I lose ffb once in a while. Is this a known bug? It's annoying and i hope it will be fixed soon.
Ahh thank you. I haven't raced in the wet yet. I will leave it off though since it makes the game almost unplayable fps wise, even when it's dry.
This really doesn't make a lot of sense. If you want to simulate any environment, then the accuracy of a physics engine is paramount. If you want to interact with said simulation, accurately, then information feedback is absolutely paramount. I agree that there are a lot of things out there that look a lot better than rf2, but they certainly don't drive as well in my estimation. That said, as an aside, i'd like to see 5.1 properly implemented. For those who can hear, sound is an easily exploited means of feedback. Even if you can't hear; the ability to place directional vibration generators around your chair would ultimately be just as useful. Obviously sound is not as important as FFB and physics, though. John
Oh, and in comparing rf2 to rf1, using the same hardware with which you played rf1, I think it's a little unfair to be citing low FPS as an indicator of quality. I'm running two GTX 285's in SLI, and although it runs great with HDR, I too can't use surface or road reflections... nor can I use multiview. But I'm using a card that was the top of the line back in rf1's days. I'm sure if i invested a similar amount of money now (I didn't actually, they were second hand later on, but you get the idea) I'd be able to run rf2 at full pelt.
I had read something about that... I wondered how it worked. It is pretty awesome, I have to say. Not sure its worth the huge expense of those lil sub speakers though when I already have a 5.1 setup. Still... very very cool.
I didn't compare RF1 and RF2 fps-wise. The former runs with almost double the fps. I compared graphics quality and found they didn't differ that much. 7 years should make ad big difference graphics wise.
I don't question that RF2 is an excellent simulator. I just pointed out that it looks almost as it's predecessor graphics wise, and thats not good enough to me. I hope ISI will spend time on grapchics now they've done the physics. Luckily they're working and improving all the time.
ISI hav'nt spent 7 years on RF2 though, sure the Graphics are not mindblowingly amazing (see AC!!) but they are good enough (for now IMO), it's not as if they've been locked away in a room solely working on it as they've had other projects plus everything else RF2 related. I think the general public are more demanding of graphics based on what other games are capable of and what other Sim companies are doing, personally as long as it drives great then graphics comes afer that but I appreciate others may want it different.
try racing at 9am or 4:30 PM on any decent track - looks ALOT better - night racing and mid-day racing does not look as good. Since they have passage of time / movement of sun, they cannot make a proper HDR profile that looks great for a specific time of day. That is the problem with their lighting effects. Maybe in DirectX 12. The cars and etc.. are QUITE well done and actually look better than iRacing cars.
Just for the record their are a few very vocal, critical (and likely lonely) minority here that you just have to ignore.
I'm sorry, Sofo, but I must remind you that according to the Terms of Use of these forums, all members are required to include verbiage in their posts to the effect of "but the physics are great!" at least twice during any 24 hour period. Let me be the one to say thanks for your initial post. It is extremely valuable to have some insight to the game from a new user. Those of us who've been playing with it for the past year or more sometimes forget how it must appear to someone just coming into it. I think your initial impressions are very telling. Graphically, rF2's development is rather stunted in comparison to the larger racing and gaming community's expectations. To be fair, I don't think graphics were a top priority for development. They've taken the opposite position from the Pcars team, which seemed to focus almost entirely on the graphic development at the outset. We can only hope the graphics in rF2 will receive the attention it needs before too long.
