High Quality Post Effects

Thank you, on my hit list when I get started with rF2.

 

Thank you, on my hit list when I get started with rF2.

 

I Know and I see that . I really didn't want to presume a lack of experience and as I said I love the overall work but when reading your reply you made me think, you expect me an eye popping simulation because this is generally the first what people think of post effects. But I know that it can be done better. Of course I also respect the decision, not to make use of all post effects and keep the game "clean" but in my opinion some effects are part of a realistic appearance since they simulate a physical behavior. That's why I asked, if this can be done by external plugins. So nobody who doesn't like it, has to use it . Best compromise ever .

@QUF
Signed. That is exactly what I mean. I also don't expect a too strong motion blur because this is not a real behaviour but a subtle one as QUF said would make the sense of speed better (again, not the feel of warp speed). Without motion blur, all objects in the corner of the eye are warping because the framerate is way to low to show the position of an object at every nano second (or what the brain is capable to process in real life). Want to say, when driving fast and there is a tree 50m in front of you, in the next frame the tree has covered 30m. In the virtual ride just look out of the left window without turning the view. You'll notice a very fast slide show of single images all the time while the long distance view to driving direction still looks perfect. Used with polished setup those minor effects may have a huge impact on look and feel and most peoply wouldn't even notice why . Just my experience . My main goal at this effect is to compensate some technical limitations to the real world not to use it as a style element like in other race games.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the rear lights look no more than just coloured textures (fake lights) rather than actual light sources which emit light, and dynamically shine on, and reflect off of it's surroundings. I also notice this with a lot of things in many cars' cockpits. Many dials, tachs, guages, displays, etc. look just like coloured textures rather than "real" light sources.

 

Would SSAO look better than baked AO? Sounds interesting.

And
+1 for bloom on light source
+1 for DOF for trackside cams

 

No.

SSAO and AO maps are not the same thing and/or they should not be taken as alternatives; you can have both. SSAO/pixel shader just try to mimic AO via buffer and this has a GPU performance cost but it is usually stable and CPU friendly. Has some artifacts and may introduce a bit of fight/flickering on complex scenes and surfaces. It is a good PS btw. Baking AO is something mandatory for architectural objects (as buildings, structures etc), if you want an high res (and solid) visual of the occlusion shading phenomena. Performance cost is pretty cheap, especially today with fat VRAM available on modern cards. AO/GI object baking it's still used by modern games.

 

Agree with most here that replay or TV Cam DOF and maybe lens flare would be nice. Racing my motorbike, I never noticed motion blur affecting anything in my focused vision. Bloom or "light auras" for headlights, brakelights etc... yes, is nice, has been faked quite well by some modders.

Wet Weather effects would be nice, seem to be coming anyway.

The biggest visual difference to me between AC and RF2 usually is the 3d grass, honestly. Brianza 2.0 for example to me seems very similar in color tone and HDR, the only thing that looks better on AC is DOF and Grass.

 

In my opinion, RF2 is the best product out there, way superior than the others. So, taking into consideration that this game is heavily customizable, why not include these effects for those who prefer with it?

 

Motion blur, an absolute no-go as far as I'm concerned.
My eyes are not little restricted cameras.. they're eyes and should be treated as such.

Motion blue adds unnecessary complications to the driving, makes it harder to make out little details, which you in real life would be able to focus on without problems.
It would not be realistic in any way, shape or form to have in the sim.

It may introduce an increased sense of speed (I still don't understand those who think rF2 lacks a sense of speed?), but at a very high cost.
Totally not worth the trade-off IMO.

Also it would add a hideous cinematic feel to the sim, which would be totally out of place.
I get why action games etc. would want to replicate a cinematic feel, but in a sim it's totally misplaced.

Trackside camera DOF? Why not.

 

I never said anything about that just that it is correct ie: "good" enough for me.

You can't have everything and like I said DirectXxx will do a better job........ but I remember you disputing that fact so lets wait and see hey.

As for lighting 7am Belgium down Bournville straight I can see the haze of early morning sunlight and feel the warmth.
Something gives you that much immersion they doing something right.

Isn't all lighting in PC just "coloured textures" anyway .............I get ya point Spin I do.

What I am getting less and less is why you bother with rF2.

 

I would expect that with VR devices the eye will properly adapt since the display will be the main light source.

With a monitor I would think that the overall ambient light will have a more important effect than the display and intensity. Maybe playing in a dark room better enhances the effect.

When you go to bed and in the dark you use your smartphone or tablet you realize that your pupils are too much dilated and after a while you will see the brightness of the screen even after switching off the screen.

You can adjust the mobile brightness to a minimum which is fine for darkness but impossible to use in a sunny day.

IMO a monitor is not good enough to create an eye adaptation effect. It would require some faked post effect to create a similar perception.


Enviado desde mi SM-G130HN mediante Tapatalk

 

Since they are going Steam I totally agree with you here and these option should be ON by default. Those that follow rF2 for longer time would just turn off all this, probably

 

Like Tuttle said, company/product goals and taste, as well as priorities.

 

About Motion Blur; no. It is not a realistic effect if you are trying to simulate a rough scenario to be seen by your own eyes, instead a video camera output as you were watching a Live F1. Camera aperture/shutter speed can realize motion blur but, again, we are not simulating a camera system, while you are driving. I understand the needs to put some "as seen on TV" effects is gonna make more people happy, but this has nothing to do with realism. Less than zero.

Human vision DOES NOT produce object solid blurring like optical/sensor systems, as we are able to De-blur subjects thanks to retinal receptors, persistence and eye saccade. Retinal patterns are NOT reflected straight to perceptual frame, so even at terrific speeds we're still able to perceive a sequence of stable images (and subjects), instead a series of frames packed into a single one, as a video motion blur. While driving you can still see light poles, trees and stuff. Yes, you see trails and motion effects (persistence), but you are still able to see sharp images and recognize objects (shake your hand in front of your eyes). This means the two effects are NOT the same thing, at all. The important thing is we have the SAME vision experience while driving the game, unless you are playing in a small monitor (best experience is with a triple), so it's a fact your own eyes are doing blurring and de-blurring on peripheral vision as real life - while gaming...because that's a real life experience. You are doing that "postFX" at zero FPS cost. Does not matter you are not moving. Infact that's just an optical effect where you can experience blurring/deblurring just moving your hands in front of your face...or watching things moving in a monitor. Of course a monitor is introducing more phenomena connected to frequencies, scan speed etc...but still, you don't need a fake motion blur if you are trying to simulate a rough view of real life.

This is still the aeternum paradox of games using a first person POV. Are you watching the monitor as rough real life scenario, OR, are you watching the monitor as if you were watching a crappy helmet camera? Are you driving yourself or are you driving someone else through a visor?

There is a time were we have to be honest each other, does not matter if we are pro massive postFX or against it. All these visual addons are just something related to personal taste, and because sometimes they are just "so nice & so cool" things to see, shining out from your monitors, instead experiencing thing as they should be; sometimes normal, sometimes boring, sometimes amazing etc. We are much more used to WOW in front of movies, music clips and videogames...than real life ""normality". I'm not saying they sucks or they are bad tout court...but I would not use the "REALISTIC" tag to promote it. They are something people want because they are cool to watch and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Because we are a small company and they needs months/years of development to be implemented properly and we do not have this target/goal, at this moment. Now. Today.

 

Still you got the best racing game ever created.

 

Finaly I'm happy (in a good way) with something that is said about this subjects, even so, once in a while would be AMAZING if ISI could share with they fans something like a to do list, or a timeline development. That would give people a much more cleaner scene of what is going to happen and what could be expected.

This small things could do a HUGE diference in peoples opinion and if you want to reach the masses, you(when I say you I don't mean only you Tutle but all company) must keep the positive hype with that kind od things that i described earlier. That hype created before rF2 as gone, and even the news about it going to steam without nothing more don't make that hype come back...

Its just my opinion, an opinion from someone that almost don't play any other SIM but that still think rfactor 2 is somehow lost in space... Maybe its because the Rogue System

Try to listen more your followers... Things will go better

 

Personally I'm against any sort of to-do list or timeline, the reason is that people then expect those deadlines on the timeline to be met, when they aren't they cry like spoilt brats and whine about features not being done when ISI said etc etc!
Besides, a game that is in constant development like this will have certain features moved around due to priorities, so the Timeline will in effect need to be constantly updated itself and then the above problems with whining resurface!

 

I like the idea of an to do list. I don't like the idea of listening to the followers.

They are the pro's.

HDR changes from saturated to pale visuals is a thing that happened when they listened to us, to a degree...

PS. A to-do list is not a timeline. It is a simple list of things that get done. #soon
haha.

 

I was not aware of the team size but I really like to support smaller studios. So I completely understand if there are things that can't simply be done yet. Thank you.

Regarding the post effects, an rFactor 2 screenshot in the following image is exactly what I'd like to achieve and you can not tell me, you don't like it or that this is an overload of post effects. It looks just real.

http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/16552-Community-Screenshots-Thread-%28Edited-Screens-Only%29?p=366206&viewfull=1#post366206

However, I got it, that this might be something for the future.