Hi all, I'm not totally pleased by the look of the clouds for now. I can understand that it's not a top priority but in any case, how do they are created and in witch format? In other words, could we change the graphical texture in something better? I'm no programmer at all but i'm using photoshop generally and i'm intersted in modding the clouds image if someone can help me Is it possible? Any idea? (for example, i like the way of fsx clouds are now when using rex textures for those who know it ))
Clouds in rF2 are not static textures as in rF1, they are dynamically generated and updated throughout the session. So nope, I'm afraid you can't do anything about it.
Yes, you're right. But, unfortunately, I'm with the Trollray, the clouds looks very, very flat nowadays, like they were a vapor plane. Better clouds would be a boost on the general looking of game.
That is not true. The cloud textures are contained in the sky.mas in Core. That is true - since the clouds are/could be used to determine track temp, it is critical that they be the same for server and all clients to prevent cheating. So they are encrypted and part of Core which cannot be changed.
So the next time you see a cloud in RF2 sky, don't think it's just a sloppy texture, but that is a piece of data with a precise function.
They are not perceived as flat (normal map job), they are thin, as they have to be (cirrus/cirrocumulus etc..). We can't do much more than this as texture based clouds are looking good since you are reproducing mostly cirrus and alto-stratus, where the cloud is just a thin layer that you can easily reproduce using normal maps. That is what you are seeing with the majority of our cloudy skies. And imho it is working good, especially with sun elevation <=50°. To make other clouds, like cumulus or dramatic nimbostratus and anvils, we would need volumetric clouds and procedural skies. Not available at the moment.
Since they are very distant from the camera/driver, why can't flat textures for cumulus be used in the same way distant hills & buildings are often planar projections? Has it been tried and the result was obviously unfit for presentation?
It works pretty good to compose light cloud to overcast using planar as this give you a huge variety of mix available, producing non pattern cloud schemes. Cumulus has a different nature, apart the fact it is not planar but solid, it could appear silly because you would recognize same clouds repeating here and there because of the "isolated" nature of these formations. So, while you can mix planar to get a big variety of conditions with no visible and annoying pattern/repeating schemes, and then make this scheme dynamic along the time variable, you can't do the same with cumulus. PS: not saying we can't do that. It's just would look repetitive.
I remember you or Luc talking about volumetric clouds a loooong time ago. Almost 2 years now. IIRC you were very hopeful that one day you will be able to get it because not only clouds could benefit from that but also smoke (which could be used for colliding with body parts, so smoke build up in wheel arches, smoke overflowing the car instead of going through it, rain spray too etc). Am I imagining it right? Or missing sth?
And btw, cumulus are WAY WAY WAY lower than cirrus...we are talking about 1/2000 meters for cumulus VS 10000/12000 meters for cirrus-stratus. So they are not really a background. They should be straight in front of you and on top...or it will look a cartoon.
Thanks for the reply guys. I'm not focused on clouds when i drive but i think that they look pretty thin. Without mass i mean The other view limit is that they look a little bit under textured. I mean, it's like if the resolution was lower than the rest. I could understand really the problem with cumulus because of their particular form but would be nice to have better clouds "in general render" just to help immersion. I think it work good when hdr gives you an overcast weather from sunny times. We can really feel the change of light in that but it seems a little bit to white instead of a grey feeling. Texture more detailed or little color balance would help a bit. My 5 cents )
T.Y. for the reply. And what if the clouds turn their colours a bit more when it's about to storm? Poznan real picture: Poznan in rF2: The real sky is more dramatic and has darker spots here and there, maybe the shader used to emulate clouds could randomly tint the rF2 clouds main diffuse in order to simulate that "angry" sky... Just wondering. But I don't know if it would be realistic since rF2 is simulating only the higher clouds seams. Aside that, the benefits would be more to visually bost replays, SS and track cameras, I believe the current system is immersive for the driver P.O.V. Edit> Now I see Tuttle has already answered my question, the darker clouds should be in much lower altitudes than those ISI engine emulates.
This is from arma 3. Just amazing how they have done day/night/weather transition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsgYy-Z2_Ck Is it possible in rfactor2 ? If weather and day night transition are well made in physical engine (temps, grip change etc)why not do them perfect in visuals I would like to say also that the last screenshots and release of tracks are always better and better. Shaders look so much better than from the beta version. Hey, you do a great job guys, i'm just here to push your limit lol Thanks for your reply/answer.
That's an SDK generating volumetric clouds on GPU (I think it demands DX11). Should be the same you have in Driveclub. As I said yesterday, it is not possible in rF2 as we are not using volumetric clouds. I keep saying "at the moment" not to tease you about anything (I've really nothing to tease), but because it's a fact. At the moment we do not have volumetric clouds. If you ask me if we'll ever see V. Clouds running in rF2, I don't know. I'm trying to be honest and open mind, but I can't really give you more than that. Said that, never forget we can't just run a cool sky and sit, as our skies are part of the dynamic environment (and they do not have to bomb Lag and FPS). Not just a matter to swap sky model in a blink of an eye....
Indeed. There is no possible comparison. It is not only about repetition. That sky from AC is horrible and provides no realism at all. I think rF2 sky is already very good. Time would be better spent in other aspect that need more improvement such as rain or implementing wind which is still pending. Enviado desde mi ONE A2001 mediante Tapatalk
Nice comparison, rF2 sky is way better, but the clouds are a bit dark to my taste (clouds are usually white and reflects a lot of light)
I don't want this to descend into any kind of BS bashing thread. But i do agree with you in terms of rf2 there. It seems you could feel the light "changing" as the sun came up, like the colours slowly altered with the day going by. Where the scene in AC, the colours and light stayed the same as it progressed. Stuff you would not really notice, but it's happening. Personally, I would like to see rain (track effects and also graphical) and general track effects. Heat, from sun, cars, etc. Stuff to really realise a dynamic race surface.
