Latest Roadmap Update - January 2018!!!

He's right though. Seems that S397 can't do anything without copping some sort of flack.

 

Then one could argue that what is the point of having accurate car data or advanced tyre model just for gamers..

 

Because it is accurate and advanced in relation to other consumer product, not in the absolute meaning of the word. And it is so because there is a market for that level of product : a level that is in the middle range from casual gamers, and professional firms that use simulation for actual purposes that are not "having fun".

 

Having a 1:1 accurate representation would take a lot of processing power if you were to leave it at the resolution it was scanned at.

 

How advanced is the key word here,I bet it’s not as in depth or (advanced) as many people believe it is.
Again no point in going to in-depth due to needing banks of pc’s to be able to take advantage of said data,just like f1 teams sims

 

I think the scenery mesh in Flight Simulator (or P3D as the newer version is) maxes out at 38m.

Pretty good for looking at from 38000ft, but it's still not super accurate because it's the whole planet we're looking at here.

Same for laser scanned track. It's not as perfect as people like to make it out to be.

 

Do you realize that none of us have a computer which can move a circuit with a mesh of 1x1 cm?
The precision is very important, but the common sense is iseful too.

 

How they could complain for performances otherwise?

 

But... But... MUH REALISM!

Guarantee you the mo-cap used in the latest Call of Duty game (the video game version of laser scanning) has been smoothed the hell out afterwards.

Even then it's not 100% accurate. The V8 Supercars in iRacing (which are officially sanctioned by Supercars) have been fiddled because Ford and Holden didn't want each other getting data.

 

What's the point on having 1 cm mesh (even with a NASA mainframe available) if the car physics won't respond to this level of detail? Just asking

 

Indeed, at 80Km/h, at a rate of 400 hz, a tire move about 5 cm/tick in the simulation, so, in slow turns, I guess that 5by5 is the densest ffb information we can achieve with current tech. At 300 km/h this figure is around 20 cm/tick.

 

rfactor 2 tire model runs at 2400Hz tho, at least that's what Marcell said. Car body runs at 400, according to him there is no much gain in making it run faster and cpus would not handle it at all since putting these in separated thread would be bad

 

Becuase people think that'll give them the most realism.

 

why i dont really give a f about laser scanned tracks, as long as gradients are somewhat similar. it wont matter!

 

Laser scanned tracks are cool, but they're not the be all and end all. RF2's Silverstone isn't laser scanned and I doubt any of us would tell the difference.

 

Well...

 

I cannot say laser scanner is useless because it captures centimeters where they're really important: track camber and kerbs' height, those can affect lap times, but most of gathered points of the cloud are dropped in smooth zones due excessive detailing. Certainly there's other advantages, e.g it's handy to capture all geometry all at once. Third advantage is any engineering building work are not built as the blueprint, laser scanner gets the real "as built" plant.

Said that, it's still more marketing than any other intent, but for whom is going to race in real life at certain circuit and intends to execute a very serious track practice laser-scanning make some difference for track learning. For 99% of regular users, not much.

 

laser scanned vs non laser scanned is on the whole is night & day +well done ones are of the highest quality in so many other ways to the user than just knowing one is in a point cloud where all scale & proportions etc just seem totally correct even if one has not been there, the laser tracks are sooooooo much better , happy for others to disagree if they have a vast amount of experience driving on laser tracks & feel differently of course, no problems

 

Some of the value derived from LS tracks is just knowing that a certain level of accuracy, consistency and realism is achieved. Then maybe some people can stop questioning every detail and just enjoy the title for what it is.

Compare the track consistency among tracks in AC / iRacing against PC2 tracks and you'll find vastly different results that affect - not only our sense of realism but, how the surface details and bumps have greater variety and correlate to the unique features and character of well-known tracks. Then - to go even further, drive tracks in RaceRoom and feel how lifeless and dull (through FFB) they feel by comparison; it's really like night and day to me.

 

AC's Donington Park isn't laser scanned, but you wouldn't know until someone told you. And it's a mod track. Same for Oulton Park and Zandvoort. Zandvoort is Kunos content though and it was funny watching everyone get in hysterics when they discovered it wasn't laser scanned; despite the fact they were praising it before they found out!

If it's well made, it's well made. That's just me though. I won't get upset that a bump on the track right at the edge of a corner you never go near unless you were trying is 3mm lower than 'what it should be'

Keeping it rf2 centric though: Road Atlanta, Silverstone and Bathurst. They're an absolute joy to drive (Bathurst is my all time RF2 track) But I don't think about the laser scanning, I think about getting through Skyline without ending up falling down the side of a mountain.

Laser is cool, don't get me wrong. But it's not the end of the world if it's not and it's well made.

Hopefully the laser scanned track we get soon is a fun one.