After having not played games since Grand Prix Legends, I have just started with rFactor2. I really like it. Like in Grand Prix Legends, the opponent engine sounds in rFactor2 sound very loud. This is certainly intentional and perhaps meant to improve situational awareness. However, I don´t quite like it. Here is my quick analysis. - Actually, player engine is louder than opponent engines. Looking at "Other Volume Ratio" in player.JSON, the default ratio is 1 to 0.692708. This can be heard in replays, where player engine sticks out a bit. - Changing the ratio to 1 : 0.2 (say) makes opponent engines softer. Player engine becomes easier to hear in starts. - Unfortunately 1 : 0.2 ratio also makes player engine stick out dramatically in replays. What is preferred setting for driving is not necessarily preferred for replays. - Engine volumes are not realistically attenuated by distance. That would be: inversely proportionally to the square of the distance (disregarding some finer nuances here). Instead, some creative formula with gentler attenuation curve is used. That is why opponent engines seem so loud despite being "actually" softer. (There is "Engine Volume Reduction" parameter, but it doesn't seem to do much.) How would I like to change this? - Add option for realistic attenuation by distance. - Make it possible to set volume ratio to (say) 1 : 5 to make opponent engines louder. This would be useful, because realistic attenuation together with realistic 1 : 1 volume ratio could make opponent engines almost inaudible (when driving). - Add another independent volume ratio for replays (or perhaps for when not driving). This could be realistic 1 : 1 by default. It should be noted, that full realism in sound levels is not so simple as it may seem: Like obviously many people (including me) like to hear tire skid sound, realistic or not. And how about a F1 engine right behind your head compared to a street car engine? Yet both have equal volume in rFactor2... * I have been driving the Skip Barber. The engine sound is quite "rich" for a 4-cylinder. Is it perhaps using a V8 sample? EDIT2: After driving more: I guess this is 4-cylinder sound after all. Also I gave a quick try for the Dallara DW12 Honda Indycar. Is it not using a V6 or V12 sample, or something like that? It doesn´t sound like a V8. EDIT: Ok. The car actually has a V6. I thought Indycar engines are V8. * I was quite happy to find, that setting "Options Volume" to 0 in player.JSON mutes the menu sounds. * That´s it. Please comment.
Regarding attenuation, it may depend on mod. Newer ISI cars like Brabham have all the following line mentioned in release notes: – Using new sound internal / external attenuation variables I don't remember exactly what the change was in the mod .SFX file, but I suppose it's to make it more realistic in proportion to distance as you mentioned.
I made some sound testing. Raced against single opponent at Mountain Peak Kart Oval. Both driving Brabham. The attenuation was still definitely not inversely proportional to the square of the distance. If in doubt, do this: Stall your engine at the start line and let the opponent drive alone. His engine volume doesn't increase dramatically (realistically) when he passes you. I enjoy driving rFactor2, but option for realistic attenuation would be very welcome.
No GUI or JSON/INI options as far as I know... but as for the attenuation in mods... // ATTENUTATION (sic) //(<range>,<oldShape>,<ambient>,<expShape>) // range, it is highly recommend leaving this at 1.0 when using exp attenuation // oldShape, old attenuation shape (recommended to disable 0.0) // ambient, range within which the volume is 100% // expShape, lower values will make the volume higher, higher values will make the volume lower From the Brabham: EngineAttenInside=(1.0, 0, 1.0, 0.021) EngineAttenOutside=(1.0, 0, 1.0, 0.011) ShiftAttenInside=(1.0, 0, 1.0, 0.021) ShiftAttenOutside=(1.0, 0, 1.0, 0.011) OtherAttenInside=(1.0, 0, 0.5, 0.021) OtherAttenOutside=(1.0, 0, 0.5, 0.011) Sorry, I'm not sure on the specifics *player.JSON only has Trackside parameters; I doubt it affects other vehicles.
I think the attenuation on distance is done like this on purpose, because if it where realistic you would here all engines more or less loud at any track camera position (replay or not), what could be annoying with time. (hope I got your point here) I agree that the balancing is not the best though.
// ATTENUTATION (sic) //(<range>,<oldShape>,<ambient>,<expShape>) // range, it is highly recommend leaving this at 1.0 when using exp attenuation // oldShape, old attenuation shape (recommended to disable 0.0) // ambient, range within which the volume is 100% // expShape, lower values will make the volume higher, higher values will make the volume lower The exponential shape parameter used in the new attenuation model does to me indicate it's now at least closer to a square root dependency than before, but without knowing what the exact code does it's hard to say though.
Do you mean that with realistic attenuation the sound levels would differ too much for different camera/microphone positions? For example, engine sound recorded by a trackside camera would be very soft compared to sound recorded by the cockpit camera. This could be fixed by having different output levels for those cameras. I think this unrealistic attenuation is a driving aid which improves situational awereness. But I guess it also makes the experience closer to expectations somehow: Motor racing is noisy business and spectators hear multiple engine sounds all the time. (But the drivers don't.) I have yet to open a .rfcmp file, but "expShape" sounds promising.
No, I mean that you would hear all engines at once all the time, at any camera. Because in real life the external sound of a race car is that loud that you can hear it all around the track. However, I believe that wasn´t your question really... The actual solution is not ideal. One should be able to tweak internal and external sound independent in the audio-setup.
In real life you almost need earplugs when race car passes close by, PC speakers output dB that is many magnitudes less. So what you hear as faint external sound from distant cars in real life shouldn't be audible at all on PC speakers. That if the attenuation works realistic. If I understood thread starter correctly, he wants this attenuation effect to be more dramatic, meaning sounds cut off even quicker with distance. I think it comes down to the issue of simulating realistic sound dB variation on speakers/headphones, which is simply not possible to be done convincingly.
There is some misunderstanding here. I am advocating steeper (= more realistic) attenuation than in the game. And in real life you hear all cars all the time only, if you are not very close to the track. As stonec explains below, simply because a car near you overpowers other cars. Having very powerful speakers would help a lot. Sound should be felt through body, not just by ears. But I am not playing in an underground bunker using earplugs, so I am not interested in that. Indeed, for a computer game we want an artistic interpretation, but it can be done in many ways. In real life you can hear a bird sing at one kilometer distance. Perhaps over a lake or in a reverberant valley. However, you can't hear it, if there is another bird singing at the same time one meter from you. Going by the simple geometric formula (amplitude is inversely proportional to the square of distance, ignoring important variables like reflections), the amplitude ratio of of the two birds would one to million. This exceeds CD quality dynamics, which is only 65536 discrete steps for amplitude. Changing the birds in the above example to loud racing car engines doesn't fundamentally change so much. Dynamic range (or attenuation by distance) can still be quite realistic. If so desired.
