Minimum/Recommended System Specs for rFactor 2

According to this page : no, no, and yes. A 32-bit process has an address space limit of 4GB on a 64-bit OS with the IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE flag set.

 

Edited

 

No wonder PC gaming is dying, when u have to set the requirements to a PC standard that is 5 years old to satisfy your customers. People with 6 year old PC`s will complain.

 

Can't please everyone

 

Whether you can run another title is nothing to do with whether you can run this one.

The specifications for rFactor 2 were in the first post.

 

not necessarily...Pc gaming is reborning,because with all the hardware we have we can run most specific software than console;
ISI are self-funding themselves,that's why they're going to make rF2 they way it should be without any publisher pressures and we'll be running it with multiple controllers,track-IR,specific peripherals ...all of this with no limits FPS at cheaper price due to less developing costs;that's impossible to do on console...
of course 6 years PC should be taking into the project,but when you pay 69€ for x360 game plus the console price,plus the LIVE subsciption and other accessories to play "burnout paradise" on day 1 for a week or two ,you also have the money to upgrade your old machine to play for YEARS at rF2;
of course subjected by the fact that our PC need that hardware upgrade really to run rF2 at its best,but this time ISI are a bit conservative;
I agree with them,but I'm also sure that in the future programs like rF3,Arma 3,Kart racing PRO,netKar PRO lookalike etc.. etc... will be the only entertainment software running on our beloved PC machines;just professional or semi-professional titles,at least with very technical content,and maybe that teams like ISI could push a bit further the specs required to run the software; less titles on the market,but a way more technical and more hardcore customers than now to support standalone developers,as the console will become ever more arcade with movement sensors,family game type and so on.I'm confident that rF2 will sell a way more than rF1,surely on the long term.
remember also that console titles will be difficult to re-sell in the future,due to online activation codes that need to be re-bought on a re-played title,so ever expansive.

 

Life expectancy of a gaming computer is between 18-24 months. You can push it to 30 if your a real baddy and upgrade SOMETHING in the 30 months. Also nobody should grab A+ top of the line hardware when first updating. 3-4 month old hardware is half the price and 8% slower usually.

There is no excuse to be using a 6 year old PC for ANY sort of gaming.

 

The most hilarious part is people complaining because *they* cant afford to upgrade. Same with the product announcements from companies such as Fanatec. People saying the product sucks because its out of their price range.

 

Just be glad you're not planning on getting BF3 where a DX10+ video card is required.

 

Its not him frankwer with the slow pc lesiu, he's having a dig at the having to cater for 6 year old pc's

Its even worse when people moan there laptops won't play it.

Sim racing is a hobby the way i see it, and i always want the best for my hobby which means a top end pc, plus i can't be arsed faffing with graphics max or nothing lol

 

I fully agree. Today PC hardware is cheaper than ever (if you don't buy the recently announced new hardware stuff immediately). Every cheap PC from the nearby supermarket is faster than a 6 years old gaming computer.

 

if keeping up with the trend is what you mean, then yea ... but for rFactor2, I alone, I'd expect to get many many years assuming the starting config is relatively new [12-18 months old]

No argument here, if you've got the readies, then why not of course. But is it necessary ... probably not unless your work requirement demands it. Can you really tell the difference between 30 FPS and 100 FPS on a stable setup? Maybe you can, but I got to ask if the difference worth the cost to get to 100 FPS.

I do feel there is quite a bit of mis representation in the gaming market where the old adage of faster is better clouds over the actual realities. I'm no pro PC rig builder here, just my opinion here.

Fair point and I dunno how this 6 year old HW conversation grew roots and blosssomed.

My reading of Tim's min spec and recommended spec does not pander to these aging machines and why should/would it. [the existence of which I'll accept but not is great enough numbers to really count].

It's is good that rFactor2 will not necessarily need us to go out and get the latest and greatest with the dollar price tag to boot.

My specs [for reference] are as follows ... and as you can read, nothing awesome.

Athalon X2 2.9GHz Dual core, 4GB Ram, 2 HDD [System 10000, 320GB and Data 7200 1TB], Nvidia GTX550 Ti, XP Pro 32bit, sound card and DVD reader with USB and extra air fans built into an older case. I've OC'd to 3.2GHz because I can [first time ever OCing]. rF1 naturally runs nicely and I feel rF2 will do so also. I've also played F1 2010, ARMA2 and a few other titles satisfactorily on it.

 

Since you can run rF1 @ 300 FPS (current high-end systems can do that easily without VSync) you're clearly not taking advantage of all available machine resources.

I can't run NFSU2 over @ 80 - 90 FPS most of time. Assuming there's no code wasting, that software is optimizing the system usage. Indeed, if you notice the amount of 3d objects, the shaders variety, special effects, huge number of textures being loaded and so on you'll have to recognize the system is being used close to its maximum capacity.

Surely most rF2 customers won't be interested only in visual aspects but in the simulation reality itself. I guess modern quad-cores can manage the calculations as a breeze. However I reckon the rF2 system requirements are too low in comparison to what up-to-date systems could carry.

 

I got your point, I have a similar idea, BUT if they will be able to give us a good looking modern simulator (don't need to be super uber stuff) just something slightly better than iracing, plus some post processing and reflection magic, I will be cool with that for a couple of years.

Obviously saing that I don't mean I'll accept low quality cars, tracks ecc... iracing has a good / decent standard I want ISI to improve it!
PS I don't give a damn about laser scanning PR marketing BS.

 

100% agree. I dont care that the bumps are exactly the same as the real track. Give me a good representation of the real track with a surface that "feels" right.

 

What you have there with rF1 is a physics engine designed to run on the machines of that time, and a graphics engine that doesn't utilise enough of the modern options to push a recent graphics card at all. NFS might have a similar amount of raw processing (physics and overhead) but does enough graphical stuff to make the GPU the bottleneck. It would probably be reasonable to assume NFS-type games might also do more sound processing than rF1, but that could be done on a separate core anyway.

rF2, judging by the requirements and Tim's comment, will require a fairly modern CPU to be able to do the raw physics stuff on a core (bearing in mind a lot of the physics code for your car, perhaps especially on initial release, won't be split onto multiple cores). You could probably fit everything else, including extra sound processing, onto a second core and hardly touch any others (apart from background processes etc) so having more cores will help a bit but with diminishing returns. So it's quite possible a quad-core won't realise any performance gain over a dual-core, unless they manage to divide the physics into separate threads - which, depending on how it all works, could be quite a difficult task. (potentially a LOT of dependencies exist between various parts of the car)

I would imagine we might see this area further optimised after the initial release; but the fact that the required clock speed has been raised from 1.4GHz (single core) to 2.4GHz (dual core) is a good sign that the physics engine has taken a significant step forward.

 

Short answer is yes. If I normally get 100+ frames doing a lap of the Nurbergring then tell my fraps to record a live lap. Most of the time (especially with the older revisions) fraps will cap the framerate to 30.. And I can tell you the physics iterations suffer, FFB suffers, reaction time suffers. Everything suffers. My X1950XT could do 40 fps everything maxed in rFactor 2 years ago but when I went to my 4890 and stock 940 everything changed. My god what a relief it was. I can force CFAA Wide-Tent Anti-Aliasing and 16X Anisotropic filtering with "Radeon Pro" Software to really clean up the graphics of this old girl and still break 100 frames. And they don't even sell 4890's anymore..

 

Exactly. 30fps and 100fps is huge difference if frames are rendered without motion blur.
See http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm for answer "why"
I'm not talking about situation that physics engine depends on frame rate or overloaded system affects overall game playability.

 

There is an extreme difference between 30 and 60 and probably 60 to 100. My LCD will not run faster then 60hz so I personally haven't had the opportunity to see 100. But I have read that once the frame rate reaches 80+ the brain is tricked into thinking it is real. Just look at the old slowmo replays in NFL football games where they captured the video around 30fps. Half the time you can't even see the action because it happened between frames. Now they are capturing at 60fps so when they do slowmo replays there is twice as much detail.

So just think about what you are missing in the sim if your only running 30fs. It sounds like splitting hairs but it isn't.