High Quality Post Effects

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by OriK, Oct 21, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alpha-bravo

    alpha-bravo Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    31
    Tuttle with all respect but I if I remember me correct Tosch was not very happy about that. Of course it is possible that I got something wrong because of language barriers.

    I want pick up some points from this discussion and give you (all not only ISI) a feedback from the view of a experienced (self-assessment ;)) rf2 user with a decent equipement (you can see the details in my profile).
    I've no special technical background knowledge about all this gfx things but I use them and have learned to modify them.


    All in all I'm very satisfied with my rF2 enviroment and the main reason for using and prefering rF2 was always that I want a "simulation and not a game".
    rF2 can offer this because it support so many important areas if you want simulate things.

    I really like post effects if they are well done (Dirt Rally still early access status for example looks IMO incredible good) on the other hand most of the time I don't miss this effects in rF2.
    Why most time ?
    Because I love for example the replay features of rF2 (what I mean is to have the opportunity while I'm in the pit to switch all the different cams and watch what's going on the track or watch a playback of myself)
    This is so far I know a unique feature in rF2 (don't know Iracing in detail I did a test with it "but found not the time" to discover all features) and here is one point where I miss sometimes some of this post effects.
    IMO we should look and evaluate the whole concept and that should be as uniform as possible. What it is IMO. Except the following parts:
    and I hope now that I am not completely wrong and from the subject away. ^^ If so apologies!
    - Dust (it's good but sometimes not good enough to maintain the illusion/immersion)
    - Smoke (it's good but sometimes not good enough to maintain the illusion/immersion)
    - Spray (not so good as dust but ok but most time not good enough to maintain the illusion/immersion)
    - Rain (it's ok but ATM IMO it can't maintain the illusion/immersion)
    - Rain effect on Windshield (completly missing but urgently needed)
    IMO these should be on the same level of quality like all other effects because I think it's more worth to have a
    uniform and homogeneous look and feel as "some super duper" areas.
    If I understand the strategy of ISI in the right way (hopefully) this are areas where we can expect improvements ?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2015
  2. Mibrandt

    Mibrandt Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    258
  3. Tosch

    Tosch Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,872
    Likes Received:
    51
    Bloom before tonemapping is essential/must have. The main changes in rF2 gfx since the first release are based on removing features instead of develop them further.
    If I had to speculate I would say ISI lost a gfx developer in May 2013. It's around the same time when Micheal Juliano left the team to work on his own project (Rogue System).
     
  4. stonec

    stonec Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,273
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    Sun glare, bloom, tree self-shadowing, rain effects, heat haze over track... just some examples of fx that were removed since early or before beta release. Today's high-end GPU's offer 3 times the rendering power of those in 2011, so adding those features back at least as optional settings would be appreciated.
     
  5. Alejandro1

    Alejandro1 Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    5
    Id never seen those before.
    I remember seeing blur and DoF as free samples from nvidia. But only for dx11:
    https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-samples-overview

    There is more free samples with some other dependencies on OGL and some on deffered rendering like smoke, some simple global illumination, particles, skin, AO, bloom, etc.
    And paid/marketing/physx things, like those used on Pcars.
     
  6. Will Mazeo

    Will Mazeo Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    Would rather have DX12 if that meant better performance (especially for not so good PCs) than any of these effects :)
     
  7. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    581
    Yes ISI, copy paste these effects in, I mean, how hard can it be? :cool:
     
  8. vali

    vali Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the FX I hate most is "bloom". IRL my eyes dont see the world like that unless it is early in the morning and I still didn't wash my eyes.

    I think rF2 lacks just a bit of contrast with full sun in a clear day, but that's it. Mos of the post effects are just gimmicks and not real at all. Just because other games use them to appeal the guys who rate gaming with screenshots/YT vids, does't make them real. It is like asking for all the cars blow up in fire with any contact just because in movies it happens like that.

    Anyways, I use rFactor for the driving side of the experience. I think more than 70% of the userbase use it for the same reason. If you are racing you only see the car in front of you or the track and almost nothing else. If you have time to check if the grass is green enough of the branches of a tree are realistic, you are going too slow.
     
  9. stonec

    stonec Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,273
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    DX12 is not supported on Windows 7 so it will be a long time before people adopt to it. rF2 runs better than most other new games like pCars and will only improve as people upgrade their hardware. I don't see performance as problem anymore except for some isolated SLI issues. IMO the current engine is capable of better as was seen in those 2011 screenshots, this is my favourite one.
     
  10. DmitryRUS

    DmitryRUS Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    429
    Likes Received:
    39
    Graphics terrible, gMotor 2.0 was better.
     
  11. Alejandro1

    Alejandro1 Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    5
    Yes, nvidia said that nobody used any of them.
    And because of that started paying/doing marketing agreements to developers to use the more recent ones with nvidia themselves doing the job.
    Sadly now they dont give the source anymore because of that(unless you pay).
     
  12. Nuno Lourenço

    Nuno Lourenço Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    65
    And probably you're not wrong... who knows... but it looks like everybody is satisfied enought so... you must be seeing things...

    DX12 is useless to a game like this.
     
  13. Lgel

    Lgel Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,246
    Likes Received:
    329
    RF2 has come from so far in the graphical aspects lately, that I have no longer any complaint (I voiced many before, so not a blind fanboy).
    It will improve with time, no doubt.

    Visual are good enough for me to feel immersion and enjoy a lot the sim.

    Thanks ISI.
     
  14. OriK

    OriK Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    You'll see it actually at night everywhere. Just look for a light with black background and watch the glare around the lamp. So I don't expect a full scenic bloom but only at super bright elements like light sources or sun specular. Everything else is unreal indeed. Sure, billboard flares would work but the behaviour is not natural. I'd like to use the bloom as shown in the example.
    View attachment 18359
    The first image just shows the pure self illum map. The second image slightly multiplies the output intensity and is a good setup to implicate an illuminating surface but not a high powered light source and you can still recognize the stripe with all its single leds. Increasing the output value dramatically, it just doesn't fit to the actual light source. This might be a good value for low beam. The advantage is, the glare softly appears and disapears depending on the view. There are no billboards cutting into surfaces and the bloom always fits the design of its light source like the daytime running lights. So working with bloom and glares carefully, instead of full bloom environments, is the secret for a natural environment. So is the bloom technique. You need a large, soft, very unobstusive bloom around the actual glowing element.

    How to test your own "real" motion blur. Watched it again in the morning on an autobahn at 110 km/h. Faster wasn't even necessary because it worked fine already. You need to focus on a static point like the side mirror and now just watch the overtaking cars or other close but fast passing objects from the corner of your eyes. Et voilà. The faster you are the bigger the distance to the objects can be in order to notice the effect. The human eye just can't focus a static point in a very fast moving environment so your brain will always try to focus a point like road markings for example. The best way to test real motion blur is using the train. Just watch a single rail (you don't even need to focus a specific point) and you can just watch the most natural motion blur ever as long as you want. It really does exist :).
     
  15. Guineapiggy

    Guineapiggy Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem with bloom as a post-process is that it doesn't take in to account the difference between magnitudes of luminance. To a post-processing filter like bloom the white of a billboard is no different to the white of the sun or the clouds and that's simply not how light or eyes work. Also, your 'test' for motion blur isn't exactly accurate. The function of the eye and visual processing is far more complex than you're making it sound and, whatever the case, it certainly isn't the same as camera motion blur.

    With motion faster than the eye can process it frequently invents what it sees based on a loose interpretation of what's actually happening, which isn't the same. It's an organ that takes shortcuts and edits what you see. If you want to see this in action try simply looking at a clock without moving your head. Turn your eyes to it quickly and watch. What you didn't notice happen is that you actually went blind as your eyes moved and your brain backfilled your memory of what you were seeing. That's what creates the visual illusion of time moving slower when you glance over at a clock briefly, which from a brief search I just learned is known 'chronostasis', because your brain fools you in to thinking you were looking at it for longer than you actually were. This is known as saccadic masking and is one of the many many ways our eyes differ from cameras.

    Here's an extract from a brief paper on the RPI or 'rubber pencil illusion':
    Basically our brain tries to process out motion blur (semi-efficiently at best) but can't do this if it's a built-in fact of what we're seeing. Thus game with a motion blur filter is very different to what we see at high speed. Not to mention that from what I understand motion blur filters introduce a significant lag factor which is a terrible idea for a sim.

    Besides, if you want motion blur you can invest in a 120 - 144hz screen and a beefy GPU. At those framerates it'll happen naturally without the associated lag or visual disparity.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2015
  16. Tiago Lourenço

    Tiago Lourenço Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    After all, we are the black sheeps. :p
     
  17. coops

    coops Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,680
    Likes Received:
    9
    not being nasty in any way but if you are coming from console to pc you will have big differences in eye candy, reason as we all don't run the same pc with the same parts so you will never get the EYE CANDY OF CONSOLE

    why is it everyone is always on about graphics ??????? To me rf2 looks more real than over exposed bull**** looking perfect everything that you get from console, yes it still needs work in some areas but the sim is still in WIP and will never be out of it.
     
  18. Guineapiggy

    Guineapiggy Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not entirely. Whilst there is a large amount of variance in platforms and ISI has always been about backwards compatability, (I still can't fathom why they went as far as to include DX7 support in rF1 honestly, that seemed above and beyond), the average gaming PC is usually going to be as powerful if not more powerful than the consoles of the time. This console generation is still new(ish) so that's slightly skewed but processing power isn't the main issue for ISI, it's man power. They're not exactly staffed or funded like Bethesda so they have to prioritise what they want and as they're producing a sim graphics take a back seat. There have been dozens of arguments over the balance to be struck there but ISI seem to have a direction they're set on.

    Still, I'm totally with you on the notion you can go way way too far with FX. A game can have amazingly advanced graphics and still be hideous. Most early Unreal Engine 3 games had this issue.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
  19. Nuno Lourenço

    Nuno Lourenço Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Messages:
    593
    Likes Received:
    65
    I'm not really sure what you mean with "you will never get the EYE CANDY OF CONSOLE" but, a PS4 is almost 3 times slower than a simple GTX 970... A 1000€ computer can easily be 3 times faster than a PS4 so makes no sense what you're saying.
     
  20. Mibrandt

    Mibrandt Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2013
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    258
    I feel the same way. It went from this:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    To This:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I hope its not final. Maybe they are going on steam to finance a GFX guy - if your theory is correct that would be great.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page