What's with people not caring about looks?

Yeah , i have some great expectations for DX 11 .

 

It would be better to be cautious with expectations, at least performance wise.

 

Do you know something or just being "cautious"?

 

no offence, but not caring so much, is very different then not caring at all. Also, the example you bring is someone who can't run higher settings, so even if the game would become prettier, he wouldn't be able to take advantage of it because of his PC. So off course for him it doesn't matter to much wether the graphics improve or not, because he won't notice it... I'm not saying you are 100% wrong for everybody, just that this isn't an example to your point.

For me personally, I don't really mind to much about the graphics either. Off course I would be happy if it would get better, but I won't be nearly as happy as I would be when some physics stuff improves, like standing water on some places, track in the shadow being colder and not drying as much as in the sun.

Also, when in game, the driving is such a great sensation, as well as a big part of where my attention goes. Whether that means I'm a crappy simracer or not, rFactor 2 really is immersive for me and the graphics make total sense while driving. When watching replays, or screenshots, then you can most of the times tell it is rFactor 2, not real life (although I have seen some screenshots where I had to look twice ). At that times I can really tell that some games are prettier, but while driving the total picture (graphics + physics) just makes sense to my brain, and it feels like the most life like experience I have had when sitting in my room. So for me as well, if resources mean they can either do graphics or physics, I too would like them to prioritise physics, but that doesn't mean I or (most) others don't care about graphics at all

 

I know nothing , but RF2 won't receive a scratch built graphic engine natively working with DX11, we will receive and updated engine that will incorporate DX11 features to improve it. Under this circumstances I don't think we can expect incredible increase in performances, maybe during 2017 things will run better with further development, but those 10-20% FPS increase seem to me a bit optimistic. (Oh I will be really glad to be wrong, but I prefer to expect none and receive +5% than to expect 20 and receive 5).

 

If DX11 made rF2 more trustable under hard situations would be already great tbh. I mean... I can trust P CARS to start a race with night and rain and max grid easily, the game is playable all time despite the average lower fps compared to rF2, but in rF2 I'll need the auto detail framerate and it still give some freezes here and there (and even under dry weather there is some fps drop at the start of the race), ofc in part this could be related to processing power rF2 needs I guess

Btw what is rF2 processor % use in high resolution like 4k compared to full hd? Other games have a huge drop, wonder what happens with rF2

 

You Guys are funny.
It must just be people who cant run higher settings trying to play down the importance of visuals then.
Kind of like me being colour blind and finding a particular tone of grey look better than another. lol, i dont really like colours anyway.

 

CPU usage goes down in 4K because the GPU becomes the bottleneck. Because you have so much less FPS in 4K, the CPU sits idle most of the time. I would guess there is little difference to other games in this aspect, a higher resolution simply requires more number crunching and it's not magically going to become less GPU hogging in DX11. A new GPU might help more here as newer cards have hardware more suitable for running at 4K due to various compression techniques etc.

Also I would say dropdowns in performance in car packs is mostly because car is too high polygon or not implementing proper LOD levels, again doubt DX11 will change it much. DX11 enables to run some visual tricks that make it possible to hide badly built objects. That's why AC runs so well, their approach is more to focus on the graphics engine tricks and build tracks with less actual polygons in them.

I'd agree something along a 20% improvement in FPS from less expensive shadows and real-time reflections etc. would be a great start.

 

uhm, no? Did you only read the first sentence? At the end of the first paragraph I'm even saying that it can be different for others

However, as per your example, if someone is complaining that something (a car, a painting, you name it) has to little different colours and can't understand that some people don't agree with him, than brining a colour blind person of all people doesn't really help the argument. Doesn't mean you are wrong, just that the example is really bad

 

Okay, well at least I'm not 100% wrong.

 

Let me put it a bit different. I didn't mean to go into you or anyone in this topic being wrong or right, because frankly I don't really understand this thread in the first place since I think it will make no difference for S397 or rF2 at all. I just tried to state that no matter who is wrong or right, that that example just made no sense. And than after that I decided to share my view on this subject, again not to say someone is right or wrong, just to give you an insight in how some people think (because after all, I feel that is what you created this topic for). But look at is this way. If I were to start a thread asking what is with people not caring about physic improvements. Then you (or someone else, just being hypothetical) asks who those people are, because you can't recall having seen anyone say that. Than bringing an example of a player that races with a keyboard, and has all driving aids on wouldn't mean anything. Off course such person wouldn't matter because he would hardly notice any difference. That doesn't mean anything about other players, it just doesn't bring anything to the argument. You want to hear from people with some top-end hardware saying such things, and why, because that gives a much better insight as to why some people think that way. That will improve understanding of your, or the other side of the story. So again, I don't want to go into someone being wrong, or right, I just wanted to point out that that example doesn't help anyone understand either side thus helps nothing in helping you answer the question of your thread.

 

Я, ни кто ни когда не слушать то, что я сказал о визуальной части игры. Первые скриншоты 2010 были в разы лучше, чем скриншоты 2016 года.
от ISI хотел бы добавить блеск к старому графику, вместо этого, они изменили алгоритм освещения и добавил призрачное "Альбедо".
И снова я повторяю, шейдерного Real Дорога тупая визуальная часть игры !!!
Переход dx11 утопии, когда альбедо карты настроек. Вам просто нужно вырезать эту часть, чтобы вернуть старое освещение.
Я думаю, что я уже знаю, что нас ждет в следующем. rFaktor 2 не был рожден доношенными, теперь недействителен. Я говорю только о графике и новых возможностей.

 

So albedo maps are stupid then? Shame on all the other games that use such primitive gfx technology! and for something you say is dumb, you seem to post the same rubbish every thread you can.

 

Other games have priority in imaging but not in physics. RF2 required balance physics visualization. ISI no successful implementation of Albedo.

 

Other games have fully utilised the industry PBR standard. ISI / S397 has their own version of that which I'm hoping will fit more inline with industry standard in future. It is by no means a failure.

 

Say What?

 

ISI does not develop rF2 anymore, Studio 397 does. It seems to me you haven't played rF2 in years.

 

Sorry but I'm running triple 1080 screens on a gtx 1060,I can run good settings and to me in a race,rf2 looks the most natural out of any sim,seems to me you want fake screen shot quality while racing,that just isn't the case in real life,while racing things do not look crisp and clean,they look blurred somewhat because you are traveling at such speeds.

Like I said,the other games that look "better" also look more fake to me,and let's not get into the physics

 

Not true sorry. Things may look a bit blurry in peripheral view, but you focus on points, cars, apexes and your eyes, brain and inner ear work together to keep that image steady. If it would work like you say, racing would be nearly impossible.
If you see camera images at high speed from a drivers' eye position, then you can get a blurry image (though there are already cameras that use techniques to rule the blur out, but still not as good as the human eye).

 

The problem displaying the materials. The refraction of light in the shadow, the reflection of objects reflected in the wet conditions, the volume of geometry in the background. New screenshots show hope to display the correct materials and underscore the geometry of the light and shadow. I hope that the effect of a wet road will be made worthy of reflection.
If the picture does not cause problems - it is the correct picture. When questions arise - this is controversial. Now there is no coverage of issues morning day evening night. But the question of the road condition, the degree of humidity. Drying wheel ruts. Directions rubber scratches Real Road.