Discussion in 'News & Notifications' started by Christopher Elliott, Mar 17, 2017.
Uninstalling it and any vestige of it is the best you can do.
Why is that ?
I am not so much talking about the bonnet, even if that is another problem, but the tube structure in front of the wing. Fact is, you will allways face those issues in 3D game environments unless you use extremely efficient AA, wich comes at a cost no matter it is in DX9 or DX11. AC is running with worse performance for me on a single screen with DX11 and worse AA compared to rF2 using DX9. Keep in mind that this might look different for people using other hardware or screen setups. There is no holy grail and if it was so easy to point a finger at the issue, we wouldn't have this discussion. So as Tuttle allready explained, you will never get around it. Except of investing in highend hardware or as LeStrat and other people allready suggested, use the ingame AA with rF2 at it's highest possible setting and forget about Nvidia inspector. Because that's the maxium you will get out of it without losing too much performance and causing other issues.
I think @2ndLastJedi 's problems come from the fact that he is racing with some huge screen if I remember correct. I'm afraid most games are tuned for optimal usage on a 24 inch 1080p screen. I frankly haven't noticed much flickering in any of the racing sims I play, and I typically use FXAA or 2nd lowest level of AA, but maybe it's a combination of screen size and eye sensitivity. I'd assume VR will magnify all these issues, so if a game looks good in VR, it should look good on almost any screen size. So those problems should in theory be fixed with the upcoming VR transition.
screw graphics, let PC resource be spent on physics/ffb, its a super fine balancing act
You got it mate, 55" UHD, couldn't possibly consider playing on a 24". lol
Doesn't matter any more as with settings I've currently got all signs of flickering are gone . Now rF2, AMS and R3E all look pretty darn smooth, don't really care what AC or pCars look like.
Interesting. AC for me runs maxed above 60FPS at all times with lots of AI who looks great model/texture wise while rF2 im running me on medium quality and AI on medium and sometimes low and the rest of the settings around medium and i always drop under 60FPS around 5 AI cars or every time i pass the pits (not on all tracks but most). So AC has been very good performance wise for me while i never have solid 60FPS in rF2. As i mentioned though my PC is getting old (AMD FX8350 and GTX980 on triple 1920x1080), but AC and AMS is running great on max or close to max and in AMS i can even have 30 AI with minimal FPS drops while in rF2 i only race against 10-12 max as even that will drop FPS quite heavily when im around the cars.
So it will be cool to see if DX11 helps a bit to hold me over until i can get a better CPU+mobo+RAM.
Something that should be mentioned/repeated for those that can and those that haven't is that in rF2 running your graphics cards lanes (PCIe Interface) at 3.0 x16 makes a huge difference & can result in an increase of 25fps.
Some motherboards need this to be triggered via the BIOS, but x79 mobos need to have the force-enable-gen3 command run at the start of every clean graphics card driver install.
Yeah... except you're wrong A two men team could release a track every 2-3 months (3 months being "taking their time"). Whether it was them being really slow, or no money to pay for the tracks I don't know, but your statement is wrong.
Are we talking about tracks build from scratch?
Never seen, that a track from scratch was build in that short time...
My biggest problem with AMS is it only being 32 Bit , @ 4k max and some Inspector AA settings, i struggle with 18 cars on grid because Ram going over 7GB ( actually really high for 32 Bit ) where in rF2 with similar settings ( 4k / all max in game ) i can run 35 cars no problem and hitting well over that , pretty much over 60fps through out (odd stutter off the line).
How would you even tell?
Two to three months is nothing out of the ordinary in the industry.
LilSki took only 4 months in his spare time to make Lightning from New Jersey Motorsport Park from aerial lidar data. I think he could turn out quality scratch tracks in 3 months if he was doing it full time.
Thatswhy I said that it might look very different for other setups. AC runs at solid 60 fps too, but it isn't as smooth as rF2 (1440x900, so very low resolution). From my impression AC is a bit more CPU hungry, especialy for older CPU's like the one I have (Phenom II X4 955), where rF2 is very GPU hungry for bigger screen setups. But that's nothing where I blame the developers for and it's natural that different softwares demand different hardware specifications or that some work better than others. Comparing AC/rF2 with AMS is a bit strange comparison. rF2 AI runs at rF1/AMS player physics level, so the higher CPU demand for the AI is only natural. I think with DX11 you might be able to gain some FPS though, as you are running a better GPU than me allready (gtx 770) and especialy the improved shadows system is something that I am looking forward to. AI runs pretty smooth for me in rF2. Had an AI race with the 20 DW12 at NOLA, everything at high (even reflections) and it was smooth throughout the whole race, even the start. NOLA isn't the most demanding track though.
Remember they also have to update old tracks, plus if you include doing the survey and retrieving all the necessary data, then 2-3 months is quite optimistic I think. I don't see the other sims releasing tracks at much quicker pace than rF2, Assetto Corsa has released like what, 5 or 6 tracks after it was out and usually one track only per DLC. But they usually provide 6+ cars per DLC whereas ISI managed two new cars per year, so there's the bigger problem IMO.
First question : have you ever made a track, or worked professionally on a track ? Or you're just conjecturing without knowing ?
Second question : do you know when was released the last scratch made track by ISI (before NOLA) ? I can't for the life of me remember it.
If you have the best reference like a laserscan pointcloud, you already have a lot of practice with the technique of creating the track, all the individual trackside objects and textures are already created or reused, you may very well be done in less than 3 months.
because you take 3 weeks to create the lowpoly mesh from the pointcloud and place all the objects and assign textures, 3 weeks to get everything working and set up inside the engine, 4 more weeks for fixes, optimization, testing, performance profiling, making previews and release candidates.
and thats with 1 person for a track of the size of silverstone with ISI quality
but that leaves out all the track survey and the art asset creation
if you create a track the oldschool way using images only you might look at 2 peaple working each for 6 weeks just to get the track modeled with all the elevation banking and so on
art assets are another story, you can go cheap and reuse as many as possible or you can try to recreate the individual look of a track and then you are talking about 10+ weeks just for that
development in for example pCARS 2 is not comparable because they have way more people, a team dedicated to developing custom tools
and are reusing assets as much as possible + they dont try to recreate the individuality of the track as much as ISI did wich makes their tracks look very boring even though they use high quality art assets
if you take all that into consideration you may come to appreciate what ISI have actually managed to do a lot more.
lol JP I always knew we're too good for this world.
no wonder some people left the ground being praised daily in that rf church.
reusing of objects.......what a luxury
I don't know there you got your "timetable" from KernigWRC, but it's illusionary and off reality.
Separate names with a comma.