In my opinion, the issue isn't the fact that RF2 uses "real" clouds, but just that the current implementation of it doesn't look that great at times. Going back to fake, non-physics clouds is a step backwards. The future - and what the aim should be - is all about things being "real" and physics based - real-time generated and dynamic. I believe PCars also has "real" clouds and that looks great, so the issue isn't that RF2 uses "real" clouds but rather just simply the way it currently looks.Guys, please forgive me. It's a rF1 video:
Please notice the sky and the overall environment. It makes the rF2 nubby skies very silly. Yeah, it's static, but there's more immersion. Would be that old GMT hardcoded skyboxi mixing real sky textures that bad?
rF2 clouds are positioned at very low altitude and they're not convincing as a textured sky. I can feel the cold in this video LOL
Just for consideration, not inducing flame.
I dream of the day ISI starts work on loose surface tracks
Can you make the curbs not fade away in darkness underwater?
Modified version of Sao Paulo.