Discussion in 'News & Notifications' started by Christopher Elliott, Apr 20, 2018.
You wouldn't happen to know if this is a new phenomenon of not would you?
It is new.
Name one of those sims that have comparable physics.
I'm huge fan of AMS, but even that has less comprehensive physics. Name one, I wonder what it is.
Also, their focus is on churning out as much paid DLC? Really?
They have GT3 pack and Formula E. I'm not counting KartSim as it's 3rd party.
Look at R3E or AC.
Well of course, to a large extent you are right. It doesn't have any impact on rF2 how the other sims perform; the quality of rF2 depends only on the development efforts for rF2, and not for any competitors. rF2 will stand on its own 2 feet by how good the program is in and of itself; it can either provide >60fps gaming with good graphical quality or it can't. End of story.
Having said which - we all have choices on which other sims we will use. I'd hypothesize that maybe 60%+ of people who run rF2 also run other sims, often for specific purposes. So for this reason, comparison to other sims is instructive.
First, we can talk online sims, and clearly the leader here is iRacing by a very long margin and nothing else comes even close. Sure, you can run rF2 online if you are prepared to run your own league/run your own servers or join SRS. But its hardly 'load it and go racing' like iRacing is. And after 18 months, S397 have made ZERO progress on this. rF2 has some features that exceed those of iRacing (full dynamic day-night primarily) but in all other respects they are close in terms of physics etc.
Which brings us to offline. Many more competitors here. First is Codemasters F1. They've done a pretty good job with an arcade-style, F1-only sim. I run F1 2016, primarily so I can drive the F1 tracks on the same race weekends the real series do. It's physics/FFB are dreadful, but its got lots of game features that rF2 doesn't have (career modes and such). Graphics-wise, its got a good DX11 implementation though on my system, I've always had problems getting it up to high fps and being smooth; it demands a bit too much of my hardware and I've always had annoying stutters/microstutters and truly terrible input lag. But it fills a certain niche for me that no other sim can. Next up is AC and PC2. They also have good DX11 implementations and have better graphical quality and features in some areas than rF2. You can run full seasonal-weather (trees change, rain, snow) and dynamic time of day in PC2; and it performs better than rF2 in the same scenarios. AC doesn't have full dynamic weather and time of day, and as a result, like iRacing it performs quite a lot better. I'd say iRacing have real challenges coming up when they go to full dynamic time of day, in terms of performance; my bet is they'll get lots of complaints that people can't run with that enabled, and they'll have some hard decisions to make for certain 'official' series about whether to enable that feature or not. Finally, we have the DX9-based sims in R3E and AMS, who do a good and consistent job but its clearly lacking in some areas. I've eliminated R3E from my set of sims but in many ways its the closest direct competitor for rF2.
For those complaining about performance, go back and read the release notes about CPU load and GPU load. There's not going to be much added to the core fixed physics thread @400Hz which is going to remain single-threaded. Maybe they can figure out how to hive off AI into many additional threads, but the argument has always been that the thread synchronization overhead eliminates any advantages here. The only thing that can make the sim drop out of 'real time' is the graphics exceeding the time needed for the physics thread. Adding CPU cores is no help, and for 4 or 8 core machines, all you'll see is utilization of 30%/15%. There's some tweaking that can be done to input threads but its fairly minimal from a performance perspective. So any improvement in multithreading (maximizing use of hardware) comes on rendering, which can be spread over more threads on DX11. And with this build, they've done so. I'm sure there's more that can be done here, and they can optimize further. They can also try to eliminate some of the CPU-GPU interactions, which they also have done as we can see by bus utilization. FYI, iRacing had a feature where they would use the CPU to calculate the shadows, and we had really good shadow (edge) quality; I fought with Steve Nash but he said that in order to optimize the GPU side, they had to eliminate that interaction. So now the shadows have the same horrible jaggy edges and 'feathering' that all other games have. I'm sure the YEBIS software has other features they can utilize to improve the graphics (and PC2 uses the same middleware, iRacing use something called popcornFX) but the core code needs improving first before that sort of stuff can be enabled.
In this build, S397 have done everything we can expect of them in improving core sim performance. We've got a nice bump in graphical quality for the same fps than we had in the old ISI code, so I'll call this one a win. There's always more can be done, but it's been a good build. Now, onto the new UI and competition infrastructure...
to be honest i dont expect any super update for online racing for rf2
as for the weather superiority of pcars 2 my experience is that the whole thing is arcadish in a good way
same goes for the rest racing experience with no rain at pcars 2
thinking positive for the future and if there is room for improvement for more fps well yes it would be super good to have better frames.
I can name four without thinking too hard. AMS, R3E, AC, and LFS. I don't care what your opinion on the physics of those games is. You sound like someone who thinks more complicated equals more realistic. It doesn't. That's marketing. But yes, rF2 has by far the most needlessly complicated physics engine.
They have released 2 DLCs and are working on more instead of fixing the game.
they need money so they make DLC's
thats what every company do kunos-slightly mad studios - Reiza Sector 3
all these games are full DLC packages.
it just took a long time before they make last update so ppl are getting angry but so far at least for my computer which is a 2017 model everything is fine.
for 600 euros you can buy a computer like mine and have 75 fps with high settings on RF 2
i mean mobo cpu gpu memory incase you have the rest like monitor psu case hard disk.
you show lack of understanding reality with each post you make.
You want more fixes and advancements without dlc,ok how about studio 397 make rf2 subscription based,surely you don’t think your one off purchase will fund development for the next year.
Or do you think devs work for free
Nope. They got money from me when I bought the game. For that, I'd like them to fix what's broken. Then they can release all the paid DLC they want, and I might even buy some of it.
Re.charging for DLC
It’s a good debate but it keeps going around in circles
Everyone is an individual with their own view
I like paying as I feel as if I’m contributing to perhaps further development , I want the devs to do well out of it which is adds to their incentive to create , develop & continue to advance rfactor2
Win - Win all round especially when top quality content is cheaper than one night out at the cinema
If you don’t agree with paid content then totally fine it’s your choice not to purchase , remember though it most lightly wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t planned to be chargeable, but respect developers decisions they know their costs & they do need monies to survive & continue to work
It’s simple really , rant over O-:
PS other titles -some cheaper others much more expensive makes no difference they are other titles
I'm not sure where you're getting 7 from, there are definitely no nodes defined in the realtime section, but I'm not familiar with how the realtime model does things either. Do you have a reference for that?
In addition to the nodes, the number of sections used has increased, originally it was 120 or so, more recent tyres are 200+. I'm pretty sure (based on the realtime bristles parameters) they're all used in realtime at least. But could be wrong
Anyway, there's definitely been an increase in CPU demand over time, but hardware has improved much more over that time. I'm just about to upgrade which should keep me safe for a few years yet.
AMS, R3E and LFS also have better graphics than rF2?
You may not care about my opinion on the physics as I don't care about yours, but are you really comparing R3E and AC to rF2?
R3E doesn't even have flat spotting modeled, tire model is so forgiving and simplified - you can overdrive the car without too much ill effects. You cannot even adjust tire pressure. I enjoy RaceRoom a lot, but when it comes to actual driving both AMS and rF2 wipe the floor with it.
Of the titles you mention only AMS comes fairly close physics wise imo (in fact it's my equal favorite along with rF2), we can agree on that, but you were supposed to mention sims that have comparable physics and better graphics (your own words). Of the four only AC has better graphics, but few would agree that physics of both are on par.
Honestly, if you think AC, and better yet LFS have comparable physics to rF2 then we have nothing to discuss further as we'll never be on the same page. I wonder however why are you even here if you enjoy other sims so much more, and seem to be so frustrated with rF2?
Perhaps because you feel it's superior to other sims but you are frustrated because it works poorly on your system?
You seem so unfair with your opinion about Studio397 saying that the only thing they care about is releasing more paid DLC. Look what they did so far: DX11, VR, new FREE tracks, improved performance for many (some suffered with latest build but you can't deny the effort - and I'm sure they'll fix it in time), new HUD, they work on new UI. I'm sure I'm forgetting something but it doesn't matter.
BTW, the latest release unfortunately brought some problems for me too that I didn't experience with previous build. From time to time I experienced micro stuttering even though my avg frame rate rarely drops below 90fps. Luckily I messed a bit with my system and was able to fix it.
Lastly, if you (I'm not aiming this at you UsedMomo, but people in general) think they can keep fixing and adding stuff for free you need to wake up. Some, or maybe even most of you bought rF2 before Studio397 took over. This is not a top seller title like PC2 or F1 franchise. That means no income. How can they stay in business? How many of you bought GT3 pack to show them support? You want everything for free and stuff fixed yesterday because you spend few quids on the game some 5 years ago and you feel entitled. Common...
You know, simracers are one of a kind. They'll spend fortune on wheels, pedals and rigs, but expect the game to work on low end systems and be all mad if it doesn't, because they spent oh, oh $15 some 2 years ago when it was on sale
What was the fix?
LOL! You might as well not buy any more computer programs ever again as all of them are broken in some way no matter how often they're patched.
Now that I've had some time to do more than just load up some AI with my car idling in the garage for basic performance, I was able to figure out why *any* car felt so sluggish in rF2 compared to AMS (or anything else for that matter)...INPUT LAG! Despite decent frames and still having physics be in "real time" and all means of VSYNC off, I seem to have a problem with input lag.
Just to make sure I wasn't crazy, I fired up AMS and drove the "totally not a 991 GT3 Cup car". From the moment I pulled out to the pit lane I could tell the difference. *bangs head on wall*
AMS is so responsive ........ from throttle to braking to cornering to ....
not to mention the crystal clear graphics.
How many people posting in this thread, know that Automobilista is actually rFactor1, and S397 did the coding for Reiza Studios?
@Mangoletsi I only have a rough idea of the development of AMS, but it's not equivalent to rF1 - it's an evolution. I'm not saying it's rF2, either.
To your question, I would say the answer is "most".
Separate names with a comma.