Ah lol is this the GTE pack? Stuff like that turns my sim mood from ferrari to decevo. Still wtf am i seeing in the rear cam view? Dude ....so you could say they are pre-rendered, right?? Graphics are not only polishing the engine and post fx. "Real grass" for example its always just 2d texture , AC just puts more time and effort although small patches (areas) can be copied around the track really. In the reiza tracks ppl talk about the lack of it, an argument is that it clips the car floor (lol) while in AMS there s no such problem, and its the lowest selling of the bunch (AMS). Maybe s397 is doing a try-hard optimization with deleting some thousands of polys just for grass blades.... in either case its lacking. Atlanta MP has nice grass and flowers even , thats an exception i guess but i m not the developer. AC vs RF2 open their tracks in 3d program and then talk about engines, actually rf2 objects can be a lot better but in game its not very impressive (except in high post fx with very big fps drop), AC is the opposite, get real AC graphics engine is polished indeed both in tracks and cars. Still AC has notoriously crappy shadows, static flags (really kunos?), non-animated marshals and no screen-buffer jumbo screens.. no one said its perfect. You still miss the point , sry for my bad englesias but u can have a quality product when u have artistic integrity, dont know how else to say it , something solid that looks good on its own without comparing with something else. That dark shadow around the track looks bad no matter what, even if it was dx9 game in 2000 it would still be unacceptable for most ppl standards. AC i even record replays no stutter, very rare to be honest not a big deal and talking about whole sessions, in rf2 its out of the question to have a 30 sec replay available.
@enduser Yep "world" shadows are prerendered. On other hand shadows on your car rendering in real time and reflections too. But again with some tricks. It's interesting to watch really. And somehow Forza optimization don't make you mad Seems it working very well with HDD cash. That's why Xbox one can run it in native 4k @ 60 fps.
All rF2 physics really shouldn't load up the GPU so when comparing FH to rF why can't S397 push higher graphics to try to match the visuals of FH? Sure my 7700k has a single core getting pushed on the CPU side but my 1080ti is kinda cruising. Sure some people don't have 1080ti's but why can't settings scale for all performance levels?
It's the Endurance pack (Oreca) what your seeing is low resolution pits of Silverstone with the frame of the monitor through the middle!
On a large screen at only 65 cm from the screen, in FULL HUD, standard AA settings and texture filtering are very bad with full ULTRA graphics. In particular, the global aliasing is very bad, and especially the shadows are very aliased. The AA sparse grid X2 improves the aliasing, but especially strongly decreases the aliasing of the shadows (I do not know the technical reason). Moreover, in nvidia inspector, passing the quality of the textures from high to high quality, but also putting the negative LOD on FIXED, strongly improves the visual. But I have both a good GPU (GTX 1080) and a very big FULL HD screen, in which I see all the flaws. On a small 27" or VR, we see much less defects in the image.
[QUOTE="filippu, post: 982309, member: 36784" Compare rF2 with any game, with a similar amount of cars on screen, and the other game will always look better while having better fps. [/QUOTE] Assetto Corsa with 4 opponents? Never ever. It drops down to 20-25 fps in VR and thats worse than rfactor2. That does not mean that rfactor2 it well optimized. The performance hit is to great with a lot of opponents or while night and rain racing. But not every other title is perfect in its way.
Don't sit so close then. You wouldn't sit that close to your television to watch it. RF2 graphics look the most natural and pleasing overall to me. AMS is only DX9 and looks awful, AC just looks false most of the time. People who moan about the colour of RF2 need to get their monitors calibrated for the the correct colours, most stock settings usually look crap. Mine is calibrated for photography so gives the correct colours. I think people should go out doors and really have a good look at what the real world looks like not what they think it looks like.
This is rF2. Threads should be called "What happened to changing track temps?" or "What happened to wind?" or "When do we get better aquaplaning emulation?" or "When is that new drivetrain model arriving?" (the list is long... I'll stop here) If I want to have FH visuals I'll go play FH. I can't see any reason for rF2 to become a FH wannabe, and we know with S397's small size it'll never do everything at a top level. I can live with subpar visuals if the simulation experience is fully fleshed out. Right now it's not hitting all the targets in any area.
@Highlandwalker 1st thank you for LMP skins 2nd how can you live with this(official picture, crop, not resized) Calibrated Eizo Ev 3285 itt.
I tested PC2, in ULTRA and with the settings nvidia inspector that I quoted. Only on the Nords. Frankly I find that when you compare to rF2, the graphics are REALLY CLOSE, as odd as it may seem. PC2 is slightly better. On the other hand, as I said, the problem of rF2 comes from the quality of these shadows and the aliasing of these shadows. In 4K, the problem is probably much less visible. Then the big problem is optimization : It is normal that the performance varies depending on the conditions (number of AI, rain, low sun, night, .....). But I think it varies in EXCESS. Then, of course Lazza, 99.999% of what is most important in a hardcore simulation like rF2, it's all about realism, not graphics (see my poll LOL)
@DrivingFast In PC2 rain+ ai is not well optimized too. Sometimes i have lags even with my rtx card. Core i7 skylake@4 GHz.
In the graphic setting screen switch FXAA to on, improves the anti aliasing of the shadows. It has no impact on performance. Here's a screen shot, unedited. Watkins Glen, ASR F1 1991. I can see nothing wrong with these shadows. Nothing is perfect in life, no matter what it is, just make the best of what available. Life is too short for this whinging just enjoy what is available at the moment. Graphics in games has improved so much over the last 25 years and still improving.
Ok, so PC2 rain + AI is not well optimized. ACC same story, is not well optimized according to a large group of people. rF2 is not well optimized according to people here. But wait, how is it that none of these new sims are well optimized? AC is the only sim people don't complain about and it's five years old and as we know, it uses static conditions and is restricted to one light source. How likely is it that none of the new sims are "optimized"? IMO it's highly unlikely. If we go by Occam's razor, the most likely explanation is not that ALL three sims are not optimized. The most likely explanation is that performance around the ballpark of ACC, PC2 and rF2 is to be expected from a sim with large grids, dynamic conditions, rain, etc. I'm not saying there is no room for improvement, but people have to realize with these high-poly car models there is a price to pay. People seem to expect modern sims to run with 100+ FPS, triples or 4K and yet laser scanned tracks with high-detail cars and 40 opponents. Not all of these criteria can be fulfilled, somewhere there has to be a compromise.
Here is rF2 4k Ultra, PP High ,5xAA in game with enhanced 4x sparse grid, 4x MS, -0.6250 LOD Bias ,Allow Negative LOD bias ,High quality TF / It looks great while using NV Inspector settings but there is the reflections and shadows issues BUT man does the driving experience rock ! As you can see my GPU is getting higher load thanks to the sparse grid but my CPU is not really sweating at all ! So i'm going to continue to look past the negatives and focus on the positives ! Hey ,how about this T280 Oh BTW 26 Ai Ya gonna have to wait for YT to make it 4k though !
It may cause some image blur but it does get rid of the jagged edge of over head cables an things like that and it it just looks more natural to me and the whole image just looks smoother and more pleasing to the eye and more like a photograph and less like a computer image. Sorry if you disagree.
@2ndLastJedi Your and Highlandwalkers screenshots doesn't have those white gloss at the car as Porshe at mine (look at the attached part of the image). I've goth the same unrealistic white sunlight gloss. Can i change settings somehow to change this thing? Well i can change racing time ofc