Sooooo, small, quality, boutique shops can't have good marketing? Ok, in the end we all have to eat twinkies because my local baker is to cynical to advertise correctly.
Also: how do you inform an interested client about your product if they don't know it exists? Marketing can be seen as a negative. But some form of raising awareness is essential if you want people to find you in the first place. Once they come to you, then sure, you have a choice to make between telling them straight what you offer, or dazzling them with shiny knick-knacks and doodads. But sitting there and saying to yourself "My product is great, they'll turn up eventually" is probably not a great strategy.
I like that "some form of raising awareness". That's marketing to people who don't like marketing LOL
I see a very good lighting, I see some very good textures, I see a reflection of good light, I see a great sky .... I see everything as it has to do and better than GSC. It was not this what you complaining in Sao Paulo? It's amazing the double standard that you have some. In Sao Paulo only see problems, here, you see nothing special ....
At least ISI isn't resorting to blatant marketing BS like so many other companies do. It's such a relief that for once we're not treated like mindless consumer zombies. Tim's zero BS policy, blatantly speaking his mind, not pandering to customers is allowing rF2 to maintain more integrity than its rivals. Seriously, marketing in the traditional sense is just BS nothing more, nothing less. Even though I think this sim deserves more credit and praise than it currently gets, I'm well aware that money talks more than anything else. Who knows, maybe AC would feel interesting to race if Kunos had spent more man hours on the actual sim, instead of marketing? It would sell a bit less right here and now, sure, but in the long run, isn't it better to make sure the very basics of the sim will actually keep racers interested? At the risk of making a generalization I'd say that another AC-ish game will pop up in a year or two, with even more glossy visuals, and the fanatical AC users will go to that instead. That's the danger of putting so much effort in the appearance of a product. Something even prettier will show up soon after and steal the spotlight. Longevity is what matters in sim racing, not appearances. rF2 on the other hand will grow slowly over time, ending up just as legendary as rF1. In time more and more people will realize that the depth this sim has to offer is the way to go. And I'm sure that nowhere along the way we'll be told that this is the world's best sim ever, by paid-off has-been racing stars struggling to make a buck.
I understand people's cynicism, but just because a product is being pushed doesn't mean it's propaganda. I personally can only sell a product that I believe in. I have seen too many good companies, products and artists in general going by the wayside because of "art for the sake of art" Being good and honest in advertising is important because, I keep trying to make the point, that if quality companies aren't better at getting themselves out there than the big waddling companies, all we will have left is the big waddling companies.
But today word of mouth is more important and powerful than ever. So if a company should choose to not rely solely on false marketing, if their product is good enough, it can still become a great success.
I agree but odds are lowered. People keep using negatives when it comes marketing "false marketing". I abhor blatant false advertising bull****, i really do, but there is still people that believe in "Truth in advertising". Why let the liars have all the fun.
I made a new comparison of Interlagos with build 880 (fixed grass shader): Basically everything still looks worse in rF2 version. The track itself is not reason why sky looks poor in rF2 or why scenery lacks contrast, why colors look weird, etc, it's because of issues in rF2 graphics engine. Btw this video was taken at 11 am in both games, not in noon as I got information HDR has issues with noon lighting.
See that's just opinion, the rf2 video looks better to me. Eyes, brains and perception are all different.
Lol, look which sim has got the most yellow grass now... Oh that's hilarious. Quick, let's all go over to VirtualR and make snide, arrogant remarks at GSCE's expense because it has the most yellow grass... No wait, we're not retarded kids... Scratch that. Yeah, perception is a funny thing. To me rF2 is superior in this comparison, even though the lack of Real Road makes the tarmac and curbs look boring. Why wasn't any rubber laid down before making the video, I might ask? rF2 is more muted, more natural looking. GSC is still overblown and cartoony.
There was rubber in both versions, I used the preset. I guess it's also monitor-dependent issue. I have factory color-calibrated IPS monitor, for me the sky in rF2 is way too dark compared to the trees and the trees lack contrast like in screenshot below, it looks more like an oil painting. The green on the curbs lacks contrast and is too light compared to real images. View attachment 14725
I agree with you, Sao Paulo looks better on GSC. The colors are more natural, more vivid, more realistic. In my opinion ISI should have spent a little more time in Sao Paulo. Although a collaboration with third parties, it is an official track and not at the level of other tracks. I would not mind it look a little better or a little worse but I understand that there are people who complain about this. I also agree that these problems are the graphics engine, mainly. RF2 looks absolutely brilliant on many occasions but also looks terrible in many others. The potential is there and I'm sure all these little problems will be solved someday. It's just a matter of time and for our part we only have patience and keep "pushing" to ISI for the fix when I can. PS: The new Terrarin Shader is really amazing. The grass looks really good, much better than GSC.
I mean, I see nothing special compared to what GSCE provides. GSCE also looks good with late afternoon conditions, road/asphalt textures are even better than in rF2 imo, and light reflection on track is also good. Personally I don't see rF2 any better than GSCE unless you use certain day time/sky etc where the lighting/dynamic shadows can make the difference (and usually that kind of daytime is not really used in normal racing). Also that sky has no clouds, which is not a very typical thing, see stonec's video for instance to compare sky with clouds. 40% of the picture is sky, and looks way better in GSCE. I have nothing against the track itself I repeat, in fact that last video I made in my Youtube channel is in that track where I had good fun. But I seriously can't see any major difference in quality compared to GSCE, that's my point.
It's strange how the left side looks more blocky like really high compression or something. You can't see any texture detail on the left but for some reason you can on the right. Did you capture these realtime? Maybe the left looks worse because rF2 was using more resources leaving less for the realtime compression. A better comparison would be to capture both without any compression and then for the final rendering do two pass compression.
