Ronnie
Registered
Right now it is bad. Pressures are now for me no1 feature that is missing/not working properly.
Jeremy Miller tweets (Senior Programmer at ISI)
- Thread starter TIG_green
- Start date
Right now it is bad. Pressures are now for me no1 feature that is missing/not working properly.
speed1
Banned
Yes, I find them too vague in general, particularly in lateral acceleration with slip and slide but I can not say that it is the tire itself, it could also be the mediated feedback or how it is treated in connection with the steering wheel FFB.
I could test it with a pad or steering wheel without feedback but had seen no reason because the developers themselves the surface and temperature distribution described as unfinished.
We will see.
stonec
Registered
I see nothing that would necessarily indicate contact path updates in next build. From dev Q&A a year ago:
Q: Can we expect some improvement in the tyre physics? How are the development priorities for tyre physics?
A: Yes. Medium (currently behind new constraint system, multiplayer collision, and improved driveline).
The tire model is still same as a year ago as far as I know. Also remember that even an internal build has to be tested for quite a while before it's release ready, so even if a contact path change was already made, it wouldn't still likely appear in the next build.
TJones
Registered
Agree!
I just said, i hope it make it in the next build. All the improvements whith higher priority than tyre physics improvements are done, so most probably it's on top of they're list now.
Also "improvement of contact patch" could mean everithing between a minor update of the actual placeholder, up to a complete solution which could include realistic temp interaction between ground and tyre surface. So you are able to cool down your rain tyres on the wet side of a partly dry track.
To me, an updated contact patch model would be the most interesting update since the new constraints system. I don't think it would necassairily increase CPU load to much, i think precise values about contact patch are pre calculated using the TGM tyre tool, therefor the time-critical realtime model can use the values of the lookup data of the TGM file. But this is speculative of course.
IMO a more realistic contact patch could have a remarkable change of how the tyre feel at the limit, we also have to take care very much on tyre pressure, and suspension geometry (camber, toe in/out). Most of our setups have to be updated than.
88mphTim
racesimcentral.net
Not sure why it is so often assumed that realism = difficulty (twitching, handling, etc). Totally depends on the person driving to interpret difficulty, and they do that only from their own perspective on their own driving. Not worth getting into, like the "noobish" thread right now complaining things seem easier, or the tire changes being talked about after the last build, when there weren't any. You can't argue when, for them, they're right. That's their interpretation. I'm sure it'll be the same way when the contact patch changes come in. Depending on how people drive, some (most, IMHO) will be finding it more difficult to make tires last. Some won't.
MikeeCZ
Registered
And what is it exactly you would like DX11 for? Motion blur PP or displacement maps on drivers fingers?
Adrianstealth
Registered
what is this obsession with dx11 - small visual effects/eye candy in which most people will have to keep switched off surely are fairly insignificant for racing simulation, I understand the opinion that it's more efficient (less gpu load) but I've never experienced this on the dx11 titles I've tried (when switching it back to dx9 )
Tim -yes they'll be all sorts of claims/views when it comes to tire changes however minor the change may be
Tim -yes they'll be all sorts of claims/views when it comes to tire changes however minor the change may be
Rich Goodwin
Registered
Because 11 is 2 more than 9 so that gives it a +2 shiny awesome nobodyknowswhytheywantit buff
Guy Moulton
Registered
Because people are avoiding rF2 simply because it lacks DX11 support. ISI needs to update the sim and bring it forward. DX9 is simply unacceptable in a current gen game. The masses out there use that as a benchmark for how advanced a game is- regardless of whether it is or not.
Adrianstealth
Registered
gosh I can't disagree with you here there is a crowd out there that seems to put these things right up on the priority list,
I don't see a high amount difference ( apart from small jazzy effects ), dx9 always seems to run better for me too ( higher fps )
in the tests I've done (with a gtx Titan ), I don't like things like blur so maybe I'm in the minority I like good visuals but will not compromise more important things (important to me) for them.
Are you implying you *want* those sorts of people to come to RF2?
Jamie Shorting
Registered
The sim racing crowd in general is overly critical and somewhat "bandwagon-ish". IL-2 BoS was just "pre released" and it's dx9. If there were any complaints or negative comments about it being dx9 there weren't enough to notice.
Rich Goodwin
Registered
Yes. I welcome any and all people to the rF2/sim racing community.
G
Guimengo
Guest
DX11 is better at hyperthreading, so if you have a multiple core processor (dual or quad usually), it'll run better with DX11. DX11 also supports tessellation, and there's a good chance the overall load on the computer will be lesser while doing the same thing. So what's wrong with it especially if it doesn't degrade from the current experience? It's equivalent to being stuck on Windows XP and denying the move to 7. Vista = DX10 in this argument if desired 
.
It's always a similar crowd spitting fire against the possibility of laying the groundwork for DX11 (or 12). The arguments are tiring, elitist, and on occasion fanboyist. The game won't look better unless it's developed to take advantage of the tech, there is a good chance it could still perform the very same way but be less of a load on the computer. Having rF2 running on DX11 with optimizations could be quite sweet. How that is a bad thing is beyond me.
.It's always a similar crowd spitting fire against the possibility of laying the groundwork for DX11 (or 12). The arguments are tiring, elitist, and on occasion fanboyist. The game won't look better unless it's developed to take advantage of the tech, there is a good chance it could still perform the very same way but be less of a load on the computer. Having rF2 running on DX11 with optimizations could be quite sweet. How that is a bad thing is beyond me.
doug484
Registered
I agree with this. I've worked in I.T. for over 25 years and I know the masses don't understand the details at all. It is like dealing with managers or executives - in their mind they deduce 9 is less than 11 and this equals inferior product - regardless of if it has any truth.
I don't work for ISI, and I am not suggesting any course of action. The above is opinion only.
speed1
Banned
Isn't good to promote the tec progress in general ? We also had better not built airbags in cars because it might not save everybodys life ?
If there was no title as pcars the technology and graphics would not be as currently and many would be unemployed in this area, starting with MS the hardware industry up to game developer.
Wouldn't ISI develope the physic engine and expand it's features, accuracy, etc........... with the second version we where not here and would still use the old tec. It's nonsense to rest when it actually is necessary to move on in my opinion. I'm not saying rf2 needs it, but it wouldn't hurt the popularity.
If there was no title as pcars the technology and graphics would not be as currently and many would be unemployed in this area, starting with MS the hardware industry up to game developer.
Wouldn't ISI develope the physic engine and expand it's features, accuracy, etc........... with the second version we where not here and would still use the old tec. It's nonsense to rest when it actually is necessary to move on in my opinion. I'm not saying rf2 needs it, but it wouldn't hurt the popularity.
Adrianstealth
Registered
the titles I've mistakenly brought in the past that have been dx11 I've always been disappointed with
( AC / code masters stuff ) I think the software house has put a lot of resource into graphics & everything else seems to have suffered
-or is it a PC can only process so much so it's a balancing act for a software house & in the case of jazzy graphics most cpu/gpu resource is going there?
if rf2 sudden became full dx11 I'd keep most effects of anyhow & what's left I doubt I'd notice when driving around a track.
Iracing introduced some dx11 I think just to hush the people that went on about it (it worked) , but it really dosn't look any different and many including me don't use the blur effects as they prefer fps
p.s maybe things will change with AC -it does feel better than it use too but I still don't use it.
the only thing I like with AC (&the dx11 in that title) is the realistic glow of backfires but that's a very small thing
( AC / code masters stuff ) I think the software house has put a lot of resource into graphics & everything else seems to have suffered
-or is it a PC can only process so much so it's a balancing act for a software house & in the case of jazzy graphics most cpu/gpu resource is going there?
if rf2 sudden became full dx11 I'd keep most effects of anyhow & what's left I doubt I'd notice when driving around a track.
Iracing introduced some dx11 I think just to hush the people that went on about it (it worked) , but it really dosn't look any different and many including me don't use the blur effects as they prefer fps
p.s maybe things will change with AC -it does feel better than it use too but I still don't use it.
the only thing I like with AC (&the dx11 in that title) is the realistic glow of backfires but that's a very small thing