Actually I know about improvements pointed by KS, because we talk about it daily I didn't wanted to go deeper and talk about single improvements made during development. I pointed to overall feeling when looking on rendered scene. Probably there are a lot of improvements made which cannot be seen (for example some optimizations). but there is no detailed change log available to read about. And yes, KS is right. I'm talking about improvements in areas described in his article. I just want to know if may I count on realistic modern gfx in rF2 or there will be no significant changes in this area, leaving rf2 to look like it looks nowadays. I'm not saying it looks completly bad. But we all know that it may be way better. And this is what I'm asking for. with regards.
I see, so it probably is a language issue. When you say 'nothing has changed' it definitely puts you in an area where it is difficult to answer.
Yeah, that's about it. When I worked on an engine my colleague could see the progress almost at daily basis. What surprized him was how things were almost standing still for a few weeks just to go "boom" over just one week and bring the project not one, but two levels up. An example: I've spend 3 weeks on something that ran at 12 FPS and then made it ran at 80 FPS after just 2 hours of work - not because I suddenly realized something, but because that was my plan from the very beginning. If he was to judge my progress on a daily basis he would have given me 20 notes saying "horrible" and one final note saying "incredible". This is just how things progress sometimes. Kinda of 90/10 rule My shaders can be even better example at times Let's make a "simple" change - add one more parameter to a shader. What users see is that there is one more field in material editor and one little extra behavior in the shader. What I really had to do to get that working could possibly be reimplementing half of the shader and pass some parameters through textures rather than encoding them in GMT file. This also means I had to add texture generator to my tool and rewrite fragments of exporter to insert that texture into material definition and encode the rest of parameters differently. Then I need to add that parameter to material database, project definition file, ensure proper visualization and synchronization with databases in editor... Things may be different than what they seem from outside.
and still, after year of developement, your editor is going to be crashed when exported into directory which doesn't exist . It is something which I wouldn't accept, if happened in my company. But there are various apporaches, I know you do it in free time as hobby, I don't pay you etc etc. I have to leave with or without it. And I'm asking just for the plan. Even not for schedule. Only for will of performing improvements I/we asked for.
i don´t even own the beta-- yet.. But what I see in this video , and some others in youtube, to my eye the graphics looks fantastic! Very realistic and amazing details. I can´t understand the wining , but maybe it looks different when "live" gaming. worse than these videos? I doupt that.. What is actually wrong with the graphics when you complain?
Yeah it looks better. lol. What's in style right now is the pCars look I guess. I remember when Cliffs of Dover was first released, some of the constant complainers said those graphics were ugly. lol. ISI will never please everyone and they've been around long enough to know that.
It is not about style or trendy. No one say it is ugly. It is just incorrect and might be looking a lot better and more realistic. No one say it must look the same like pCars (it depends on gfx artists), but yes, pCars has gfx engine which makes possible to create more realistic scene views. I can bet you know what we are talking about because it has been said a lot of times. A few post "ago" there is a link given by KS. Check pictures from rF1 with effect not possible to achieve using stock rF1 and rF2. Then say it doesn't look better.
I prefer RF2 to the look of pCARS. The reflections and super-shinyness just dont appeal to me. I think once the RF2 HDR profiles are fully configurable people who dont like the current look of RF2 will be able to change the look to suit them. I can see myself doing some small tweaks.
I'm just trying to make an example of how much work can sometimes be done with little visible progress. You seem to have lost the context here
Set the race start time of 5:30pm and time scale x15 and a 10 lap race you will get the same. Presuming you run the game maxed
O.K. I understand you now. I'm not too sure I agree since what you want "MIGHT" take alot of time. Maybe too much time that ISI just does not have.
Hi Tim, I think that MaXyM say that because, in my opinion, your answer it's a little ambiguous; it's a nice way to say "the quality of rF2 depend of a personally way to see it", and I believe that is not true, a lot of guys think's that gfx are not so good, and I also see that gfx dont change "a lot" since wip pictures...but I dont care, I like how it see, just want better performance, im very happy with product. It's just an opinion about your discussion, im not a troll, just want to say that. Sorry for my english, not my native language, I hope u understand what I mean!.
so everyone thinks that there will be no upgrades or updates after final release? if I remember correctly I start rF1 on 1055 and ended on 1255...
I'm not so worried about the graphics at all: it seems pretty good to me (I've never seen a track like Monaco so well made and fun to drive) I am rather disappointed by the performance. For example, the shadows are real FPS killer. This area needs improvement. I wish that Tim could say something about this issue.
