Latest Roadmap Update - April 2017!

Tuttle said:
No sorry. You are just applying an arbitrary overexposure. Shot on Mores is with sun almost gone, if you apply that level of extreme over exposure you'll end up with a sky totally blown and white stuff glooming.

We are not doing pictures. It's a gameplay, so AutoExposure has to work inside a small range of stops or you'll get a crazy AE pumping.
Click to expand...
The picture again raises questions, the length of the shadows, the darkness of the environment. The camera is not aimed at the light. Why is it dark?
 
Shadows are long because sun is almost gone.

You don't have to force the exposure to make the sunset environment light looking like noon. That is an arbitrary action, which is wrong, and also going to make the brighter area (sky) glowing.

If you keep adding f stops to make sunset and sunrise to have similar output as noon it's just plain wrong.

Sorry I can't explain better than this.
 
DmitryRUS said:
The picture again raises questions, the length of the shadows, the darkness of the environment. The camera is not aimed at the light. Why is it dark?
Click to expand...

Here's a thought, wait until next week and see it working for yourself instead of crying over spilt screenshots!
 
AceLain said:
So that means that the update with the fix for the IA using left lane before pit will not be fix on May 1st. Thank for the info Lazza
Click to expand...

It may not be that simple lol

They can push updates to clients through steam, and that needn't mean a new build number. And a change in AI code doesn't break compatibility, because on a server the server does the AI. So, they could fix that AI behaviour in 1108, probably do the same for the dx11 beta, and then any dedicated servers would need to be updated in order to also have the fixed AI - but players could play on a server that's patched or not patched.

I would avoid drawing any conclusions :)
 
@ECAR_Tracks I'm sure Tuttle and the other devs go outside occasionally, so if it looks right to them it can't be far away. The issue could be one of monitor calibration, which varies wildly between user PCs (and monitor response, which may vary even more).
 
DmitryRUS said:
Rfactor2 an eye simulator? Can myopia and farsightedness simulate and cataract the eye? The camera should work as a camera and not as an eye. With its speed of exposure.
Click to expand...

It's not just as simple as simulating a camera. Take for example the case with a camera placed inside a dark cockpit (screen below). Do you want the entire sky to be white in the game, because IRL the camera auto exposure works that way? Compromises have to be made.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
"Light. We see it every day, and just like how we see light, a camera does the same thing. In dim light, our pupils dilate to bring in more light, so we can see better. In bright light, our pupils contract to restrict the amount of light so we can see without being blinded. A camera will do this same thing. The aperture of a lens is the opening at which light passes through. For most lenses, this opening can change based on the camera’s settings. These opening have been standardized into specific sizes, called aperture stops, or F-stops."

When we drive our cars, our eyes are supposed to target the road/windshield, so that is where our pupils are adjusting. We have set an exposure area in a secure zone (just for the cockpit cam), which is in between the road and the sky, so where your eyes are supposed to focus, searching for the apex. So yes, we did set the cockpit to work more "eye" like, with just brightness adjustment, no DOF, No lenticular Flare, No Lens aberrations etc. Just brightness adjustment, which is by the way running in a realistic way, since we don't want a -20/+20 stops range, just to make everything looking totally noon, all the time. That would be a nonsense.

main-qimg-05b2ee8bed2a5fda6eda8836791d2de9-c

Similar it's happening when you switch to track cams, but in this case Exposure it's adjusted to balance the entire frame, and that aspect is affecting other optical effects, as lens flare, aberrations, depth of field etc...

Understanding-Exposure-Aperture-f-stops-1.png
 
Interesting stuff.

I wouldn't be naive enough to think ISI would redirect entire GFX development because one forum post of mine or of anyone... :) Obviously that was not my point and it also would be non sense. And also the picture I used as example is artificially over-exposed, but it was just to underline the dark environment (IMHO)

I'm not new in these racing simulators subject and I know since since immemorial rF1 times that ISI has their way of work (which is: we are always right), that's OK for me, it's a philosophy of doing things and avoid workarounds. I respect the choice since you were able to create the best racing sim currently available on the market but my concern is to see some simulators using rF1 engine looking better than a way improved product as rF2. Yes, it's a subjective opinion but there're plenty of people agreeing with this point which is a point for critical reflection maybe.And, again, there's nothing to do with modelling, texturing or manpower which are great, the point of concerning is GFX engine as itself.
 
When the dx11 build is a beta, are my mods still there?
My plan is to do a completely fresh install of rf2. Does the beta recognize the subscribed mods?
 
ECAR_Tracks said:
Interesting stuff.

I wouldn't be naive enough to think ISI would redirect entire GFX development because one forum post of mine or of anyone... :) Obviously that was not my point and it also would be non sense. And also the picture I used as example is artificially over-exposed, but it was just to underline the dark environment (IMHO)

I'm not new in these racing simulators subject and I know since since immemorial rF1 times that ISI has their way of work (which is: we are always right), that's OK for me, it's a philosophy of doing things and avoid workarounds. I respect the choice since you were able to create the best racing sim currently available on the market but my concern is to see some simulators using rF1 engine looking better than a way improved product as rF2. Yes, it's a subjective opinion but there're plenty of people agreeing with this point which is a point for critical reflection maybe.And, again, there's nothing to do with modelling, texturing or manpower which are great, the point of concerning is GFX engine as itself.
Click to expand...

I think, what Studio 397/ISI tried/tries to achieve is an lighting engine respecting physical laws. The nice thing for me is, that it tricks my brain into thinking that I am looking out of the windshield of a real car when I drive in the sim. It's hard to exmplain and I can't point my finger on it, but that's how I percieve the image when driving despite everything looking a bit dull in the current version. Another game that does this very well, is iRacing, even just from watching videos. When watching replays or just looking at screenshots of rF2 that "optical ollusion" falls apart due to how the game is scaling everything and the LODing currently. That said, I don't find PCars realistic looking when I drive it, nor does the PCars 2 screenshot look realistic to my eyes. It looks fantastic without a question, but that's more due to the art style of the game. It has allmost a cartoony and cinematic look to it and in that sense the term "art" fits more the artifial style of the shot. At the end I haven't seen a single game where I thought: damn this looks photorealistic, despite a few sim shots using DOF. The FR 3.5 banner on the facebook page is one of them for example.

On of the big problems is that people have different eyes with different capabilities, different hardwares and even their brains process images in different ways. That said, I can't understand people who find AMS to be the more real looking game. It looks very good for what the engine is capable of, but it looks very cartoony.

Regarding the rF2 screenshot in question, it would be the best to get someone to Mores, make a photo with the exact same camera settings at the exact same poisition and TOD to judge how realistic the image really is. because otherwise it is just a personal impression and a question of if we like the image or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top