Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by 88mphTim, Oct 21, 2013.
Thank's @rob1178 for the video
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 believe I heard Tuttle or Luc talking about considering volumetric clouds. It was less or just year ago. @Tuttle clarify please if I'm mistaken.
However let's say just for the sake of discussion that skybox, hdr and volumetric clouds happen in such a way that it changes the look of overcast weather in such a way that you would spend more time looking up than looking ahead. Nice eh? I think so too.
We know that corrected/improved hdr procedures are coming and that alone could make a subtle change that should make a whole lot of a difference to overall outcome. If volumetric clouds happen in future, with some advancements to soft particles I think it could make a difference to spray, fog etc.
Nice one Rich, good to see my old teamy Hectari still going strong
Currently 1st in our clio series too!
It was mentioned as something ISI would like to do. No actual plans (that I know of ), though.
'Playing around' with ASR's OWC643 at Spain
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.
Separate names with a comma.