Latest Roadmap Update - March 2018!!!

Just as side note you can have a track with regular meshes and the bumps, etc from laser scan as separate mesh not visible but you can feel it trought ffb...

 

we've discused it on the previous page, the realroad visual won't appear to the visible non-collidable (non-driveable) mesh.

 

really, in rF2? thats new to me.

EDIT: So even in rF2 you can have a visible mesh for graphics, and an invisible mesh for physics? (the physics mesh is a real mesh, not only some mathematically addition?)

 

yes, that's what i was referring on the previous page. But I repeat, the mesh should be driveable for dynamic racegroove to appear on that.

 

Regarding the physics details of the Nordschleife, in its scanned laser version (DX9 because the DX11 version is unfortunately missed) :

I have at least 2000 laps on it (40000 km).

I have no ability to say that the track was made according to all the physics details of the AC version, so not only the visible part but really all the details.

I am very interested to know it.

What I can say 100%, however, is that the track physics is enormously detailed, in a truly satisfactory way (FFB) :

Take a Skipbarber or a Panoz on a lap: watch the wheels move, independently :

The track is really very bumpy, and especially these are the real bumps .

Really interested that someone can confirm or deny if it's the ultra detailed track or not.

Really interested, I spent at least 80% of my time on this track.

 

I was referring to the typical rF2 mesh, 8m track width / 4poly = 2m x 2m squares.

Thanks for your clarification. I had seen some screen of the mesh of the conversion of that track and did not use that mesh. It may have been an older version.

 

I am talking about the 0.60 and 0.60a version. Later versions IMHO are not as good as the original first public version.

 

Most Sim Racers here and in other forums agree that rF2 is one of the best sim racing product available today (if not the best). It has its pros and cons, which have been extensively documented by its users.

I participate year round in online league racing and I have been a league admin as well. From my experience, the main reason that forces people to switch to other sims is not the lack of cars or tracks. There are enough of those currently available to suit pretty much anyone. It is the performance issues of the current core engine what causes the most grief. The main complain I get is that their system can not run rF2 smoothly and that other sims can. We have lost very good drivers from our leagues and rF2 because of it.

I believe that the most important thing at the moment for S397, to take rF2 to the next level, is to concentrate on the improvement of the performance of the core of their product to properly support 1 screen, Multi-screen and VR, with all its features (shadows, rain, night, etc). I would put all my efforts into it and I would make it the top priority of my company. If your core engine is not performing as expected, there is no point to talk about adding new tracks, new cars, etc, and expect to charge for it. I have a high end system dedicated to sim racing (i7-6700K, GTX 1080TI, 16 GB RAM, triple screen 1080p ) and my system struggles to run 20 cars of S397 GT3.

I know that S397 has been stating that they are fixing the performance issues, I get that. The problem is that they keep saying that and we still do not have a date, just vague statements. I am involved in the programming business for living and I know it is not easy to do these things. But I also know, that I can not keep delaying my deliverables without expecting an impact to my business. People are getting frustrated with the product and leaving, which I do not want to see. I want to see rF2 to become to top sim racing product in the market. We all will benefit from that.

S397 should provide a date, one, three or six months from now, whatever the date is, to have a release fixing the performance issues. I believe that would stop the uncertainty and the complaining as we will have a date to look forward to, rather than getting vague statements in their road maps.

 

In France, it's called "the true talk".

On the other hand, it is unreasonable to ask for an exact date (I am project manager I know what I am talking about), but just a commitment on a rough period (within 15 days, in the month, within 2 months).

The closer we get to the release date, the easier it is.

On the other hand, to the huge performance problems since the beta DX11, I would add the fact that S397 seems to be losing interest in everything related to realism.

These two points seem essential to me, not the UI or the beautiful graphics.

 

Are you badadoomba? XD

 

yes.

 

and Spinelli?

 

Someone please bring the chisel

 

I am also a PM in the IT field and it is not unreasonable to ask for a date (with a week or two max for buffer). I am sure S397 is working based on a project plan and a set of milestones and not just lets start coding and fixing this and see what happens, and we finish when we finish..... They have stated that they are testing and that they have seen major improvements so I am guessing the heavy coding is pretty much done. This leads me to believe that they have a good idea when they are going to finish this. So why not let us know when that is going to be. I think that will go a long way.

 

I would love too.

 

I fully agree with your post.

 

Open beta is the way!!!
Let people enjoy an half finished product and helping you guys ironing bugs, no release date is needed at this point, people will be part of the evolution of the game, instead of switch off the game everytime It crashes they will report to devs and try, try try and they will enjoy it ,no matter what happens, because they are part of it now...they are rF2!!!
(Gospel choir sings)

 

I downloaded 3DSimed hoping to compare the physics of the 2 tracks (ksring 0.60a and Norschleife_2016), because a user says that the oldest version (ksring) has a more detailed road. I think it could be true after testing, but impossible to be sure.

I imported the GMT then the DDS. I see the track :
What should I do next ?

Thank you.

 

@DrivingFast I doubt earlier version had higher poly count. Quickest way to view a track is probably following: Open 3DSimED, press Ctrl+Shift+I and select all GMTs from folder (this will now take a while to load). If you want textures to show you need to move DDS files to same folder as GMTs. Then go to Display tab of 3DSimED and select "WireFrame". This will now show mesh only of track. Then you also need to check different layers of mesh. By right clicking on mesh you can see what material and object it belongs to. The objects named racesurface_xx are the ones that work with realroad. If you want to view only those, go to Display -> Object filter. This should give a good view of the drivable mesh.

This is getting a bit off topic, so feel free to PM me if any more questions.

 

Thank you very much.

You're right for the OFFtopic, this one is huge !