High Quality Post Effects

Exactly! To do list is very diferent from timeline development and I agree that a to do list its more reasonable but, the main objective is to know what ISI are planing to do. Even a list can be changed and (almost) no one will complaint about that if well explained.

Then you say "man, ISI even don't need to give any explications about what they're planing or not" wish I agree but, in that case, even this forum will be useless in my POV.

No, pale visuals for me its a mith. Textures just need to be re-worked but, the main engine need some new lightning effects and who say the contrary probably has become frozen in time... Maybe in 2005...

 

Pale in comparisson to older builds and older track versions that is...

 

That's why I told you that.

Tracks were did with modified reinhard tone mapping, now that they use filmic tone mapper textures need to be updated too...

 

No really. Both are just albedo maps. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Silverstone has been done on Reinhard TM and it is still working on Filmic, same for Mores, same for Indianapolis.

We do not have to update anything has been done using albedo maps. Belgium, Monaco and Brianza are tracks mostly developed on early HDR and LDR and they have been updated using albedo maps.

 

I'm saying that textures done on "old" tone mapper don't look the same with new one and, because of that, some need to be updated.

Don't forget that rF2 don't have only tracks done by ISI. I'm talking in general, but in that matter even some ISI tracks need some work in textures but that its more like personal taste I think... Even being a simulator as you said some posts ago, I still saying that graphic aspect is as important as physics.

Personal taste again. Maybe because I'm never satisfied with what I have and keep looking for better results.

 

I could agree with you on several aspect of your post, but one thing I must say: I've never driven a car through a camera.
I believe is also forbidden by the law.

 

Michael is doing a fantastic job in keeping his customers up to date. Until now nobody complained when a feature was not ready for the scheduled updates.

 

That was only suposed to be a joke because comes to my mind that rogue system was about space and I told that rf2 was lost in space to... Now i'm wondering if guys have missunderstanding what I tried to say...

 

It's only because of to-do lists and timelines and then Rouge System...I somehow made a connection[emoji4]

 

No offense, but aren't the companies supposed to try to please as many people as possible without drifting away of the main product objectives?

In a bigger scale, just to make my words clear, didn't Microsoft somehow listen to their users about the Start Button (I like both)?

You don't like the effects, sure, no problem, what if 70% of rFactor 2's users base would like to have them? You would still not implement it because "you" don't like it?

 

@Tiago
This is what I actually was thinking too and I don't want to support million Dollar projects like Project C.A.R.S. I just don't get it because nobody who doesn't like post effects has to activate any of them so EVERYONE would get lucky. It's a fully open game to modify any custom needs but only one part of the community is supposed to get what it wants. I love the driving experience in rFactor but for my needs the visuals look outdated. Once again, I don't want eye popping visuals.

 

The thing is we're playing rF2 on a screen with a limited refresh rate. You don't watch real life like that either. So I don't think saying you don't see motion blur in real life is actually relevant.

Now, that's not to say the 'typical' motion blur you see in games is something I'd like, where everything literally just becomes a blur.

My screen updates at 60Hz, so viewing the game with 1/60th of a second worth of motion blur would emulate (roughly) watching video captured at 60fps using a camera, which will look smoother (on my screen) than completely blur-free images. Obviously those with 144Hz screens (and the power to run the game at that rate) would benefit less, and probably pretty quickly you get to the point where it really doesn't make a noticeable difference. But at 60Hz I imagine it would, and moreso at lower FPS - but of course lower FPS is probably due to insufficient hardware, and motion blur isn't exactly going to help.

Anyway, my point is very subtle motion blur (that matches the FPS) wouldn't actually be a bad thing.

 

@Tiago
This is what I actually was thinking too and I don't want to support million Dollar projects like Project C.A.R.S. I just don't get it because nobody who doesn't like post effects has to activate any of them so EVERYONE would get lucky. It's a fully open game to modify any custom needs but only one part of the community is supposed to get what it wants. So if you would have made a closed game I would absolutely understand when you follow a strict line like Need For Speed does. I love the driving experience in rFactor but for my needs the visuals look kind of outdated. I still could come up with physically based rendering, image base lighting and so on. All this are currently used techniques but I don't expect them because I dont want the engine rewritten because some tiny touches can do alot. Just a little finish NOT eye popping visuals. Look at this edited RFACTOR screenshot and tell me that this one looks ugly and nobody wants that in a game. http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/16552-Community-Screenshots-Thread-%28Edited-Screens-Only%29?p=366206&viewfull=1#post366206
This IS rFactor with some edits in Photoshop and THIS is what I'd like to achieve, NO shiny kiddy arcade racer visuals. Unfortunately there is no other engine that is fully open to modify like rFactor which is fulfilling my needs. I'd really like to support rFactor with high quality mods since I do this job as a professional over decades now but to get blocked in all ways doesn't really motivate me.

 

This is no bling bling but an edited "rFactor" screenshot with a slight touch of post production in Photoshop: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.p...-Screens-Only)?p=366437&viewfull=1#post366437
Exactly what I'd try to achieve and not the bling bling, you expect from me apparently. If you tell me, that this image looks unrealistic, boring and nobody would like to see something like this, we definitely have a different view of good visuals. But I respect that .

 

If 70% of rFactor 2 user base would ask for those postFX as "a must have"...3 years after the first release....probably means they bought the wrong product. AFAIK ISI never announced and/or introduced such list of PostFx in the product feature list. We never used it to makerting the product. The only one was that bloom we had to kill to optimize things...and I think almost zero complained about that, asking to put it back.

Microsoft, with their budget and infinite manpower, would just shrug and put it down in few weeks.

Said that, that's it for me in this discussion.

Have fun asking more shiny blin blin.

 

This is no bling bling but rFactor with slight touch of post production . Exactly what I expect actually. Not the bling bling you expect apparently. http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.p...-Screens-Only)?p=366437&viewfull=1#post366437

 

This is no bling bling but an edited "rFactor" screenshot with a slight touch of post production in Photoshop: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.p...-Screens-Only)?p=366437&viewfull=1#post366437
Exactly what I'd try to achieve and not the bling bling, you expect from me apparently. If you tell me, that this image looks unrealistic, boring and nobody would like to see something like this, we definitely have a different view of good visuals. But I respect that .

 

http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.p...ld-motion-blur?p=210000&viewfull=1#post210000

 

I wasn't disputing anything you said. I didn't even mean it as a direct reply to you. I was just using your posted pics as an example

I mean light sources which light up the environment rather than just a white coloured object to give the impression of lighting

"Real" lights have been in videogames since at-least the early 2000s. I don't mean "real" as in full-on ray tracing and super high-end stuff like that but "real" as in an actual light source - something that actually projects light and lights up an area - rather than something that is literally just a white coloured object/streak/line trying to look like the glow of a light but has no effect on anything in the scene/surroundings.



I think some of you will find these articles very interesting. The first one is quite complex and way over my head.


http://ima.udg.es/iiia/GGG/UsersDocs/mateu/obscurances.pdf

http://iq.intel.com/bringing-games-life-with-light/

http://www.moddb.com/tutorials/lighting-in-game-environments-the-hows-and-whys

 

No. It does NOT looks realistic. At All.

It looks chopped. PhotoShopped.

It is nice to see? Yeah it is, like a selfie with some instagram filter on top of it but, please, do not play the card of image realism.

If you see real life like that picture I agree with you, we definitely have a different pair of eyes.

Cheers.