Good afternoon, I recently downloaded the demo for rFactor2, seeing as it seems to be out of beta now and ready to rock. Unfortunately, it seems the Demo version is still in Alpha. I've got a AMD 1100T Black Edition 3.3G Processor, 8 GB RAM, and an nVidia 570GTX (All WAY above rFactor 2's recommended Specs) which should mean I should be able to run everything as high as it goes and have absolutely no problems. Instead, even with FXAA and HRD turned off, I still seem to be getting a dismal framerate. I'd love to spend some money on a great new racing sim, unfortunately, this one doesn't seem to be it, at least not yet. I sure hope this problem gets fixed ASAP so I can see what this game really has under it's hood. Peace, Defender
Hi defender I have a pretty high spec pc but still have to compromise here & there (press on the coloured square under my pic ) There's alot of stuff going on in rfactor 2 that's not obvious at first ( & not available in any other sims ) that takes some cpu number crunching etc Don't let your graphic setting or expectation of what settings you should be able to set spoil things for you I run with : HDR on FXAA off AA very low I don't run at highest resolution Track detail to low Shadows , texture , effects, to high AF x16 I don't render 3 screens sep ( multiview off ) I don't really use AI either. ( I only race online ) but sometimes allow 1 or 2 on track during practice for a bit of eye candy (although they do eat up resource ) Good luck
An AMD 1100t at 3.3 Ghz is honestly equivalent to an intel i5/i7 sandy bridge/ivy bridge/haswell at like 2.3 ghz, and most people run their Intels at at least 4.0 GHz, let alone 2.3 GHz. The per core power of the AMD chips is extremely low. GTX570 is almost 4th generation. Set shadows to medium, track reflections to low, environment reflections to off, circuit detail to medium or high. Oh and a big one when you are playing against other opponents, regardless of wether they are real or A.I., is opponent detail and visible vehicles. Lower visible vehicles to like 10 or something and set opponent detail to medium. By the way, environment reflections still get rendered when set to off, it's just that the image being reflected gets updated every 10 seconds rather than constantly. The reflection still looks good though, still looks like a proper reflection. You probably won't even notice
While I appreciate your post, I am not saying my machine isnt a little bit dated.. It is, but it still has absolutely no problem running, what I would consider one of the most graphically intensive games out there... Battlefield 4. And I run that game in ALL High and Ultra settings with everything turned on. What I am getting at is on the rFactor 2 website under features, it clearly states... RUNS BEST WITH - 3.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo or 3.0 GHz AMD Athlon II x2 or better - 4GB RAM or more - nVidia 250 GTS or ATI/AMD 4870 or better - 512MB Video Memory or more - Microsoft Windows Vista 64bit, Windows 7 64bit - DirectX 9.0c (included with installer) - 2008 C++ SP1 Runtimes (included with installer) - 4GB Hard Drive Space or more - Internet Connection - Steering wheel and pedals The processor they are recommending is a joke now-a-days. I have a computer that is used occasional by my wife that's nearly 10 years old with an Athlon 2 in it. And it also has a nearly just as old GTS250. So, basically ISI is telling all of us that rFactor 2 will run in FULL everything maxed out with these 10 year old components. And I'm here to say there is no way in hell that that is the case. Honestly this game would probably not even run at all with this stuff in it. Maybe I should crank up the dinosaur and try to install the demo to see if it will run.. Oh, another thing I think is hilarious.. it says runs best with 64 bit OS, but I know for a fact I just read something tonight from ISI talking about how rFactor2 was designed for 32 bit OSs. So, which is it.. Either way, my computer is at least 3 generations ahead of their "RUNS BEST WITH" specs, and it IS NOT RUNNING BEST! Period. And this is supposed to be a release version? Did EA buy out ISI? Really guys? I own rFactor and I absolutely love it, so I know for a fact that you can make a great game. With rFactor 2, until I see some significant improvements across the board, you can keep it, cause it's horrid! Peace, Defender
No, each line ends with "or better". Nowhere does it mention full or maxed out. It says "runs" as a descriptive word as well. It's a shame that they're not doing any physics calc to make a comparison worthwhile. A graphics card can't work if a CPU is bottlenecked. Honestly you're being given pretty good advice. If you're not prepared to lower settings where needed for a program to run on your system, then it's not going to run on your system how you want it to. If I were to change the wording on the Web site or underline each mention of "or better", would you consider altering your settings then? Not trying it seems... Weird.
I'll try and explain the 64 bit part but i'm no pc guru ,. that basicallly means rF2 can use 4 gig ram but if you only have 4g it's being shared with Windows so you need 64bit so you can install 8g allowing 4g for rF2 and the rest for OS . Your not going to see a great improvement in FPS even with more optimisation in rF2 , it really depends on the track makers. Those specs will run rF2 with low settings , you have to take note of the 'or better' and 'or more' part of that to get to the 'best' part of that statement.
Tim, I have lowered my settings a bit and the demo does run a lot better. From a graphical standpoint, lowering lighting and shadows always allows for a much smoother experience. So, I've done that and a couple other small adjustments and it's running quite nicely. I'm simply questioning the results of the specification requirements. Normally when you see a PC game specification chart it has 2 different charts.. One for required specs and the other for recommended. One is a REQUIREMENT, if you don't have at this stuff, the game wont run at all, but if you do have at least this stuff, it will run, but on all low settings. Then you have the recommended, AKA your "Runs best with" specs. Normally these are requirements to run your game maxed out, for the best possible gaming experience. This is not the case with your game.
Check my sig wiki and goto performance, lots of tips for ya. you sir, need to find the sweetspot relative to your system. check my spec under my avatar, its runs silky smooth. you can have that as well. But the max-settings issue is silly, it will run max relative to hardware. so your max texture will push things much further then my max texture, simply because mine is not capable of the same performance. but we both might stretching it nonetheless, just on each our own level. And since when does battlefield calculate accurate physics? or needs to calculate the game within hundreds of seconds? cannot compare man. Although I have requested rocket launchers for rf may times but somehow ISI keeps ignoring me. very annoying.
I suppose it depends on your expectations of what is meant by 'Recommended' specs, is it usual practice for 'recommended' specs to mean 'able to run fine at max settings'? Personally I don't think it is but then I'm not an avid gamer, the stuff I've seen seems to imply 'recommended' specs should give you a good gaming experience with say a mix of med/high settings. However I do agree with you about this game, the wording of the 'recommended' specs has been altered a few times but the actual specs haven't, imo they were inadequate on release and even more so now. Also how much vram does your 570 have, is it 1.28GB like my 470 or is it a 2.5GB version, I'm guessing the former because I know for me I think I could get away with a bit more vram, not that the 470 has got much extra power to spare lol.
I've never seen a game list specs which allow things to be maxed out, because a lot of them can't be on the hardware of the time. Can you find an example on an active product site? Ignoring specs on gaming sites, of course. Sounds like you haven't accepted "or better" as a factor yet. Sent using Tapatalk
Well, it seems I have a lot of apologizing to do. So I'll just tuck my tail between my legs and walk away quietly to a corner... I've searched this "recommended specs" thing and this is what I've found... http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/99244-13-what-recommended-requirements-mean http://www.giantbomb.com/pc/3045-94/forums/what-exactly-do-they-mean-by-recommended-settings-471000/ http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1083788 I would like to apologize to everyone on the rFactor2 team and especially to Tim Wheatley. For so many years now I have had this preconceived notion as to what a recommended spec is. I will blame this on my ignorance of the subject, learn from this and move on a better man for it. Peace, Defender
Well, it seems I have a lot of apologizing to do. So I'll just tuck my tail between my legs and walk away quietly to a corner... I've searched this "recommended specs" thing and this is what I've found... http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/99244-13-what-recommended-requirements-mean http://www.giantbomb.com/pc/3045-94/forums/what-exactly-do-they-mean-by-recommended-settings-471000/ http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1083788 I would like to apologize to everyone on the rFactor2 team and especially to Tim Wheatley. For so many years now I have had this preconceived notion as to what a recommended spec is. I will blame this on my ignorance of the subject, learn from this and move on a better man for it. Peace, Defender
Well, I replied to you Tim, but who-ever the forum moderators are have to approve it (I guess because it had a couple links). I guess we'll have to wait.
