Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by hamiltonfan2205, Nov 16, 2014.
Personally, I think iRacing colors look pretty photo-realistic.
When I see pictures from iracing, the first thing I notice isn't the colours, it's the skybox clouds. It makes a big difference to the overall scene. But I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that volumetric clouds is something ISI are playing around with so I'll be keen to see how that is going to look.
Whether they are photo-realistic precisely I am not sure, but they are cleverly designed to give a comforting feeling and look "authentic." The result is that they blend into the background and add to the immersion. Unfortunately almost every car and track in rF2 has some elements that jump off the screen as unrealistic/not authentic/cartoonish/etc.
+1 what Marc says..........
AC without Post Processing looks pretty close too.
Old comparison, but shows iRacing Spa has less saturation on greens and reds than real image.
It's real tricky. Watching a lot of broadcast racing/sports, it does tend to look like the iRacing shot above, and so if that's what many people are used to seeing and what they expect, then it makes sense to follow that. I just feel that certain comments about flatness and brightness are odd sometimes, like people haven't actually gone outside on a really hot and bright day and seen how bright colours can look in direct sunlight. There are things busted in the light system for sure though, just waiting for the time when the devs divert their attention to it.
With iRacing it is a bit easier to deal with though, static ToD and cloud patterns I think would make tuning the lighting a lot easier.
Cloud cover is different, so I would expect some difference. Without knowing what type of camera took the live shot and what post-processing is likely included....not much value in trying to get too detailed.
However, overall, it demonstrates that iRacing is very close to "reality."
One really important element to the bright sunlight argument is whether we are trying to simulate reality in the environment or reality of a person racing a vehicle? The person racing the vehicle has sunglasses on or a tinted visor, negating the raw brightness that one might otherwise see. I prefer the "wearing sunglasses" look, and believe that's what iRacing produces, so hope it will at least be an option when we eventually get all the lighting and HDR crap sorted-out in this sim.
I think it is a little bit on the bright side of things but ALL of the assets blend into the environment extremely well.I won't go into the merits of not pursuing dynamic system, but who's to say they won't and they won't pull it off like a few other titles have? Still, I am yet to see a widely available racing title surpass Gran Turismo 5 in regards to colors and lighting.
Oh yes, it is really nicely done and does look great.
I have always liked what they have done with the power they have. Graphics wise, not sounds wise XD
I only played a small bit of 5 (Or 6, I can't remember). Just started GT4 again a couple of weeks ago though, and barring the jaggies and some low quality areas, it is amazing how good it looks. I dunno how old it is, but for a 2 gen old console, I think it looks great.
Yes, let's say I generally agree with you. However, keep in mind I did say I wasn't finished with these shaders If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that for the diffuse ambient term, I could be looking-up the convolved diffuse cubemap by its surface normal vector, not by the reflection vector in order to get a better representation? I can jive with that.
ISI, are there any plans to includes this into the upcoming builds?
Not gonna happen - low priority according to recent interview iirc.
I think that too.
Is important to keep in mind that they don't have flexible/changing environment, it's all static, so they tune everything to match properly. And do an awesome job at it.
On the other hand, one of the most important features of rF2 is it's environment flexibility. But that comes with the "responsibility" to greatly improve the graphical engine as a whole in other to get a constant behavior of all objects and situations. Which is what a lot of guys summed up thought this topic.
To be honest I feel a little sad everytime I read the awesome insights of K Szczech on the matter, since 2012, and very little is "heard" and comes close to reality. For me, the whole graphical engine of rFactor2 should be completely rewritten, but we all know that's most likely not happening. Let alone "soon".
Yeah, it's not going to happen. I don't think there will be (m)any improvements to the graphics engine in the near future.
Good dynamic lighting is hard but not impossible to implement -- take pCars for example.
Instead, I think we should push the developers to fixing the existing bugs as best as they can (without rewriting the graphics engine). There are a lot of critical graphics issues that, when solved, would make rF2 look consistent.
Some of the critical graphics issues, to name a few:
- infamous black patches HDR bug
- weird gray specular lighting at night (and black/inverted specular spot)
- overcast/rainy weather casts sharp shadows
- car ambient shadow leaking through the wheels
- omni lights not rendered in the cube map
Not the whole graphical engine, but I don't see it happening, either, considering time and effort already spend by ISI on adding features and polishing their old engine.
Believe me, I get it wrong quite often
Usually that's because I don't have necessary insight into what ISI have in their engine and I can only relate to what I see on the screen. Having some experience of my own this is usually enough, but not always.
At this point I see no other way, either.
I thought we were simracing.
If the thread was about physics I would write about setting up stagger in my DW12 for oval racing (or the inability to)
Personally, I`d say you get it right more often than not K...
To me, your posts are always very well put and always make very good, valid and extremely knowledgeable points and pass on some very interesting and good information too.
You absolutely know what your talking about 100% and I`d like to say thanks for that input.
Mmm... not with you here budd...?
Do you mean the graphics aren`t as important as the racing?
Separate names with a comma.