"Vi-grade" which is also a partner of rFPro, has released a demonstration video of Nordschleife in 2014. As far as looking at the video, the road surface mesh I think the square of 30cm x 30cm. Precise mesh of the road surface (1cm x 1cm) is, I think that has been reproduced using the Normal Map.
Not sure you can say that, I understood perfectly what you said. You said that an accurate car on a non accurate track was next to useless. "an accurate car is almost useless on a non-accurate track" That statement is patently untrue. My example is that Toban isn't accurate as it doesn't even exist. However it's not useless, it is good racing. So is racing in good cars on imperfect tracks. Therefore your argument is flawed. Over and out.
Obviously I can. I was specifically talking about laser scan on existing tracks, as per thread topic. The topic was mainly "laser scan vs non-laser scanned Norschleife". Fictional and historic tracks simply cannot be made with laser scan data, so obviously the only option is to create them manually. Anyone should be able to understand this. Real and existent track: nothing beats LS. Fictional/historic: no way to LS data. Manual creation is fine. But I guess expecting everyone to understand was a long shot of my part. My apologies. From now on: I was specifically talking about real and existent tracks. It should be damn obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to understand that. No point in debating this any further.
You two have crossed purposes and thus crossed expectations. One of you is a sim-racer who is looking for a computer generated racing experience. The other hopes to transfer the learned techniques of the sim to a track. There is no need for a 100% accurate track representation of ANY circuit UNLESS you intend to drive that track. So both of you have positions of merit. Just accept that a race is a race to one of you and a bump is a bump to the other. I suspect the thread will be locked shortly.
The debate is interesting because many people have made interesting arguments. I do not see why the thread would be blocked. Like all threads, there is offtopic. Nothing more normal. (Laser scan offtopic).
I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea that I'm not interested in laser scanned tracks. I just think that if S397 are going to do it, start with something like Laguna Seca or Donnington and work up.
Since there is no choice, we should prioritize, it would be important to make the right choices. I would think of two things: Unsurprisingly the nordschliefe (and all of the nurburgring) + all the GP F1 2017. Because we have to prioritize of course.
There are already titles that sports F1 cars and track of this season, I don't see a reason to replicate it in RF2, even more considering how boring most F1 races on these tracks are. I think that cars and track actually avaiable are a good mix, in a parallel world were my opinion would matter to them, I would go for features instead of content.
Laser scanned tracks give the very best experience , even if the user doesn’t care about realism ( With the exception of a few lifeless real world tracks ) To reproduce such character/detail without a point cloud would be way to much work to not make it feesable to do , thus laser scan method wins , incredible how this is even debated to such a length
I thought this for very long exactly like you, really !! I said exactly the same thing ... it amuses me. It turns out that not long ago I decided to widen my spectrum of tracks. In large part, I downloaded the circuits of the team "RaceRfactor" which are I think all circuits of F1 Grand Prix. They are very good for my use, non passionate use unlike Nordschleife. Well what do you know? Layouts and everything that makes a circuit an interesting cicuit to drive are there. And these circuits are actually suitable for almost all cars ISI / S397. Some are to my taste less interesting (Monza for example). But most are SUPER and not boring !!! I was wrong. I will not change my mind now that I have tasted it. Example: Silverstone has a relatively interesting layout eventually. By cons the "visual" circuits Grand Prix is not great I think. Compared to a Nordschliefe in the middle of the forest ... I extend to a non scanned laser: I would very much like S397 or a modder to take over the Targa Florio to improve it. No need to do it again : Just put the realroad, the dynamic sky, more bumps on the road, some improved textures and trees that we could not cross, and correct IA. With the agreement of the initial modder of course. Just an idea that I want ...
When you grossly exaggerate to make your argument by making the type of statement you made (ie "next to useless") people will shoot holes in your argument. Such tracks are useful. Please also confine yourself to making your argument rather than descending into personal attacks about braincells. It hurts the credibility of your argument even more than the gross exaggeration does. The debate is about the issue not the person.
Let's assume for a second one day somebody decides to build Toban in real life, but there would be some minor differences to the sim version. Would rF2 Toban not be accurate then any longer, because it's not laser scanned and hence would not be 100% same as real life Toban? If your argument is correct, then Toban in rF2 suddenly became useless as it's no longer accurate. But in reality, it's still the same Toban for all simmers and nothing has changed.
Guys, I do not want to abuse but ... I have to ask. The modders of the "Nordchleife 2016 V1" (last AC conversion) is anonymous, I guess to protect. He must pass from time to time on this forum and look at it, I guess. Anyway. What I want to say is that unfortunately I have absolutely no skills to even improve an existing track. If it was in my abilities, I would have done it for a long time. In this version, the main thing is to pass all shaders in DX11, and improve some elements that are a little buggy, but really nothing extraordinary. I do not know why but the road does not "shine" according to the lighting. I have no idea that can take this work. But I do not think it is huge. I therefore appeal to you, modders, if you have the desire to improve this legendary and essential circuit. Many people would be very happy, not just me. In any case, there is no obligation. Everything is in the desire / courage to do it or not. And I say it again: if I could do it I would do it. Thank's
You know, you are asking someone to work on a stealed work, this would make them accomplices. Who is fool enough to spend free time to turn in a person eligible of being sued?
(Part 1 - I have to enter a message with less than 10K characters so I'll divide them into 2 parts) They are useful to an extent, but from a simulation/training perspective tracks such as the free NOS are close to useless IMO. Or do you think the free Norschleife is a good simuation/training tool? I don't. I tried racing in it twice and could not do so; the differences are so big I had to re-learn whatever I learned from watching several hundred hours of the real-life track and more several hundred hours put into the laser-scanned version of the track on simulators. That is not what simulation and training is all about, if you have to re-learn and change whatever real-life has taught you, something is terribly wrong. But more of that later on this post. It hurts when I have to go back to explaining something which was already explained several times and the counter-arguing person keeps going back to the same question or narrative. One time should be enough. I'm a cool guy for 99.9% of the time, but when I have to keep repeating myself and keep explaining the same thing over and over and over, as I had to and still have to on this thread, I tend to lose my posture a bit, yes. It's not something I'm proud of, but it's unavoidable at certain situations. In any case, I do apologize for it.
(part2) And to make a few things clear on this thread, for the last time (hopefully): 1) I do not think a non-scanned track is close to useless. I didn't say that. What I did say was: "from a training and simulation perspective, accurate cars on non-accurate tracks are close to useless". To make it clear: I do NOT think a rFactor 2 car is useless on e.g. Silverstone just because this track isn't laser scanned. The car is very accurate and the track is accurate. Both combined do serve as a good training tool. My "useless" is in terms with what I view a simulator is supposed to be. In my opinion, 'simulation' is to simulate everything as accurate as it can be, and although I do think that from a simulation perspective it doesn't make complete sense to have a car with a 99% accuracy -built from real data- on a 85-90% accurate track, that's not where my problem with non-scanned tracks is; the REAL problem for me are tracks such as the free Nordschleife or any other mod track that is waaaay different than what the real track is. If S397 were to make a non-scanned Nordschleife as good as their Silverstone, that would be a huge improvement comparing to "not having an official NOS + a terrible mod version of it" - it would certainly be enjoyable and would certainly serve as a training tool. The key here is: I have a very conservative view on what simulation is supposed to be: simulate everything right, leave nothing behind. To me, no racing simulator delivers this. While e.g. Assetto Corsa has good physics and accurate tracks, it doesn't have rain or night. To me, it's an incomplete simulation since it doesn't simulate every aspect of real-world racing. I still consider it to be a simulation, thought an incomplete one. Is it useless? Not entirely since the cars/tracks are accurate. While it's useless for night or rainy training, it does a very good job at everything else. For rFactor 2, we do simulate good cars, night-day transitions and rain, but the tracks are lacking the "simulate everything right" aspect that I consider important. That's what "close to useless" means to me, it's the car/track interactions of the simulation and what I consider to be simulation. While it may not do a 100% perfect job a car/track interactions, it does a very good job at everything else. And yes, I do think "close to useless" is a wrong and harsh use of the word here. In the case of rFactor 2 and this thread, it means in my view of simulation aspect and what I consider to be a simulation. So yes, I do think it's very useful to enjoy non-scanned tracks and I do think they're useful to learn and practice, so long as they're well represented. And again, that is my conservative view on simulation. To understand it a bit better, imagine I build a shooting simulator and make the damage model realistic, and the bullet physics are as accurate as it can be for the guns I make. That, to me, is what a good simulation would be, everything is completely accurate: the damage model, the gun's managing/handling/mechanics, and the bullet physics which encompasses bullet speed, bullet drop, the impact wind and moisture have on it's travel, etc. If one of these isn't accurate, to me the simulation is incomplete. Say the bullet drop is very inaccurate, the simulation is "close to useless" in the bullet drop department. That is not to say the overall simulation is useless, only in that particular area. The more inaccurate that area is, the closer to useless it becomes. Is it 90% accurate? Then yes, I do think calling it "close to useless" is wrong I'll change that, I promise Now, in regards to the Nordschleife: imagine I didn't make all guns to my Sim and so the community had to make some of them. In my simulator, I didn't build the most popular gun ever, the community did. In doing so, they didn't do a good job at it. The overall simulation is very good, but whenever shooting this gun the physics of it would be terrible. No matter how good you think this simulation is or how joyful it is, a real sniper would have to un-learn almost everything he knows about the real life bullet model of this gun because, for example, the bullet-drop is smaller than it should be and the wind/air-moisture doesn't have such an impact on the bullet travel either. Sure, such gun is "useful" to whoever isn't a real shooter since "we're never going to shoot a sniper in a real-life situation", and most people are going to enjoy it and actually defend only having the damage model accurate on a few guns (for whatever reason); but from a pure simulation and training perspective, for a simulator that builds such high quality damage model, having a "no-so-good" bullet physics is, whether fans like it or not, a flaw in the simulation and makes the overall package incomplete. A real soldier would not be able to train bullet physics on such gun without conforming to whatever flaws it has, and even if he trained on this simulator/gun combo, his training would be useless on a real life situation since everything he learned, from muscle memory to wind/moisture calculations, were wrong. 2) For fictional and historic tracks: we obviously don't have a real-life representative of what they are, so it only makes sense to not require laser scanning on them (well duuuh). Thinking that I somehow said these particular tracks "are useless just because they're not laser scanned" is a flaw on the person's text interpretation and/or rational thinking. (Thinking I said/implied it is like assuming "hey, Amarildo thinks a 'cat-shaped-nucelar-propulsion-gel' flying machine is useless"; no I don't, it's a fictional machine that only exists in the creators mind, I couldn't care less how he/she built it and there is no way to get data. If you, whoever you might be, assume I think otherwise, please get yourself checked out by your doctor. [I'm kidding] Thank you.) I do understand that studios have their own limitations and I would understand if S397 weren't be able to license the Nordschleife and get the laser scan data. I wouldn't be as happy as I would with a scanned track, and I would still think the entire simulation is incomplete without a laser-scanned Nordschleife, but if S397's non-scanned version of it was, say, as good as their Silverstone, it would at least be a HUGE leap forward and I would be much happier as a customer and rFactor 2 "preacher". Sure, we wouln't have a super-duper accurate Nordschleife, but at least we could point out something like "hey, our Nordschleife is pretty close to the real thing, and we have quite a few things other simulators don't, so why don't you come and have a taste of what it's like to have the very best simulator out there? ". That would certainly be way better than "hey, our cars are very accurate, but try to look past very different Nordschleife, so if you're a real race driver or have raced on a laser-scanned version of it on another simulator, please erase everything you learned and try not to get a headache or get mad at it when trying to learn it's layout while completely sucking at it because, you know, it WILL NOT feel/look as the real track. Or just swallow it entirely if you think it's not important". TL;DR: - To me, 'simulation' is supposed to simulate everything as accurate as the real life thing. If something isn't as close as it can be, then the overall simulation isn't as good as it can be since it differs from real life in certain areas; - "close to useless" refers only to a certain aspect of the simulation, not the overall simulation; - Non-scanned tracks can be enjoyed and used as a training base if they're good enough; - I would be happy with a non-scanned Nordschleife as long as it's good; - I would be completely happy with a scanned Nordschleife and would refer to "rFactor 2 + Nordschleife" as a "complete simulation on this car/track combo" and I do think it would boost it's moral against every other major simulator that already offer laser-scanned Nordschleife.
Right now fictional Toban is 'accurate' since there's nowhere to get the data. If we build a real-life Toban, it would likely differ from the Sim version, and the Sim version would differ from the real life one. I would never expect someone to build a fictional track, but if someone was to every do so then "Fictional Toban" or "Sim Toban" would have to be updated since hill heights and cambers would probably differ from the fictional version of it. Unless, of course, the people building real-life Toban poured the necessary amount of money to study and reflect the Sim version of the track accurately in real life. That is not so say the track would be useless; I never said that. If the real-life track were to be not too different from the Sim version of the same track, then the Sim Toban would be useful: it was the base for the real life track, it would have a close-to-real-life layout, cambers, etc, so it would actually serve as a base to practice. However, if the real-life version of this track differed too much from the fictional one, I'd say the fictional would be close to useless if people were to learn the real world track. They're now two different tracks, it's obvious one cannot be used to learn the other.
I salute your courage: what a long message! . By cons I am very surprised: You say that the physics of AC are very good or good? Can you explain to me why, because I found them bad.
I think it's a really good simulator. Certainly not on the same level as rFactor 2, but still really good. The handling result is pretty much identical on AC as it is on rF2 and real-life cars. Don't confuse it with FEELING because that is a completely different topic I believe I've seen a real GT3 driver named "Alexander Something" commenting on this too, that AC is a good simulator and physics are correct, though I'm not entirely sure it was him or that the comment is his. Another real life racer, who has numerous videos on the Nordschleife, said to me that AC is pretty much identical to real life. He's name is "Marcel Pfister" if I'm not mistaken. Search for "Assetto Corsa Mixed Reality" on YouTube and you'll find him. What I do know is that, along many videos as the one bellow, the following one made me buy Assetto Corsa and all it's DLC: But this is not an Assetto Corsa thread, so please contact me via PM if you'd like to talk about this I'm only answering here to not leave you on a "vacuum" Let's not divert the topic.
If there is a Laser scanned track, and the real circuit is reasphalted, the scanned track is accurate? The value of scanned track (in therms of simulation) is less?
