Someone mentioned the car not looking like it was on the track. I see that. I can only assume it's either ambient occlusion of the shadow of the tire missing (creating what looks like a greater distance between track and tire), or that it is not driving on the visual surface at that point. Either way I'll notify them.
Sorry Tim, I behaved yesterday, not ethical in relation to your team. I look at the screenshots and I'm afraid that I could not make realistic graphics on its track. Now I stopped my work on the Irwindale Speeway. There is a very important point in the configuration Global Rallycross - it's a springboard. Now we find out his options, height, length, width, slope rounds and conferences. I hope soon to have all the material, and will continue our work the rFactor2.
The sun finally looks like it is out. It is what has been holding back rF1 for so long! I messed with the HDR mod for rFactor1 trying to get it to look like it wasn't perpetually overcast. Standard HDR settings. My Tweaking to get it to look sunny. In your screens yes, the sandbag textures are low quality.. but look how much else is there! Are you going to complain about the decks of the sailboats not being physically modeled as well? The lack of clouds shows off the sky's blue scale transition nicely. If the HDR is on it looks perfect. Any more contrast and it would look fake. Sun on the ring.. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/F12Bwth2/Game Screens/rFactor2011-10-2106-57-47-10.png http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/F12Bwth2/Game Screens/rFactor2011-10-2106-57-36-94.png Keep up the good work. I can't wait to get a HistorX2 car zooming down toward that chicane with suicidal AI in front and behind!
and what else i want to say, that its again we see not texture of asphalt, just something grey color with darker (black) - the raceline (i guess)... u never saw how asphalt looks like? where is cracks on asphalt and others those stuff.. even in Nascar2003 asphalt was so good looks like real.. look on asphalt texture in C.A.R.S.....\,,.
its sad that afer 6 years of development since rfactor1 the graphic looks minimal better. I mean the physics could be so amazing but without good graphics it will never be nearly perfect it always drive with you. everybody say they dont care about graphics only physics but the graphic is a way of the physics too, its temporarily. To be honestly but the graphics look like and old game from the year 2003, its not state of the art. and with this i mean every screenshot that we see until now. (maybe the sun glare shot has a good environment but the cockpit looks still awful)
am i the only one fedup of complaining about the graphics if your going round a track looking at the road surface of state of sandbags your not going fast enough.. This is a simulator I want to try out the sim parts of this and racing in my league and better physics of the cars. If you want shiney graphics and dont care about drivability like some obviously dont go play f1 2011..
ISI has an incredibly small staff (some rF1 mods had larger teams) so expecting world-class graphics is foolish. There simply aren't enough man-hours in 10 years of development for them to make art assets comparable to something like Forza 4. I have no doubt that rFactor 2 will be a great game, but it definitely won't be the prettiest racing sim of 2012. You just need to accept that.
I just hope the textures will be sharp as a knife just like in iRacing, and please no ****ing blur postprocessing effects please (thats just a trick on consoles to not see all the jaggies).
What what ? Not fast enough lol I am very very fast, thank you and still i mind the ugly textures. I guess you don't watch replay of your laps & races (prolly cause it ain't worth it). As for the last sentence, you make me laugh, the only choice people like me have is to go **** themselves with arcade shiny graphics, you're pityfull. I'm amazed with some people low graphics standards, i bet these are the same moaning about their old rig who can't run properly the game on medium graphics and no filtering. There are people, true simracers, who are into real deal physics and dont put aside graphics. We have the right to state our opinion directly to developpers, add me to the ignore list if it bothers you (hurt your fanatics fanboy feelings). Plus i moan because every promotions about rFactor 2 should attract people and not the other way around. I dont see why some ignorant people who arent familiar with pc gaming = simracing shouldnt be attract to this world where modding provide some very nice range of cars & tracks, with an engine who offers 24h cycle and weather, noobs should run sims and add aids to their convenience and not be force to run crap games who claim to be the real driving simulator with 10 lines of code in the physics engine !
I must agree with shum or disagree with knightyc (if you wish this way) Today, real-looking graphics is nothing extraordinary. If some mind only physics and doesn't care about gfx, just ask ISI to release sim with black & white gfx... you know, 2 white lines with third one, dashed at middle of the road.
Shum... every single thing we've seen has been WIP, and published on ISI's site and forum (apart from the Monaco video, which again was stated WIP except on the site that got the exclusive... so blame them). It's info for the people already interested, not trying to attract anyone. It's been stated a number of times that they won't actually promote it until the initial release, which means after the open beta. In other words, what we're getting is an alternative to getting nothing at all. Like some of the discussions about rF1 features (or lack of) and the desire to have something better - we don't know what rF2 will actually have yet. So why waste time complaining about things they might already have fixed or be fixing? People are still playing rFactor (and are interested in rF2) despite the fact it's obviously not good looking by today's standards. So I question whether screenshots that aren't on par with recent games are actually going to turn anyone here off - apart from the few who obviously want first-rate graphics, even on WIP stuff.
Maybe to give some feedback and clue about our (some of) expectations? Why to hype anything, any time since there are some significant imperfections? Be realist. We'll get nothing more than on WIP screenshots. Not in open beta (which should be initial release but again it turned into another option). And probably not in initial release if it will see light of day for next 6 months. I thing better way it to not pretend our selfs. We have to cope with it. And probably there will be some choices.
Indeed! That was my next question. I'd like Rouen, Kyalami or Silver. Or a new one. Whatever - if it's up to this standard, any one of them will be brilliant. @ TW: Heat haze not DOF blur? Ah. Ta. Am I wrong to be thinking DOF is intended to be in rF2? Having looked at the video of Monaco a few times now, it is easily the best "old" track we've ever seen. The detail is quite astonishing: way beyond what is "necessary". Fantastic. I think the track peeps have captured classic Monaco extremely well. And to imagine we can have dusk and dawn, dry and wet and everything inbetween......woot! Do we know (or can TW confirm) that we'll have "all cars and vehicles" system in rF2? (and if so, will it be better implemented than in rF1 in which many mods refused to work). Lotus 49, F1, touring cars in the rain at Monaco at dawn.....etc?
I think if Tim has anything to do with it, it won't be in there (at least when driving) - just based on his agreement with a post of mine suggesting DOF is a bad thing when it potentially blurs something you actually want to look at. It might be something worthwhile for replay mode obviously (with an ability to switch it on/off and set the depth/range). I'm not sure on the details, and not wanting to put any mod-makers down (or underestimate the work that goes into making a mod) but I suspect these sorts of issues come down to veering away from the ISI standards more than anything else. Like with tracks, sometimes track makers specify things in the track files because they can rather than because they should (pit speed limit, session lengths, even 'locking in' the searchpath and making config.ini overrides useless...). Some mods have gone about specifying upgrade classes and other things in a completely roundabout way to the included ISI mods - and unfortunately when a decent mod happens to do it, you find a lot of others are using that as a base instead of referring back to the ISI ones and the same minor issue becomes widespread. Only speaking from a league-admin point of view, mind you. But I think it's a large factor behind all the 'custom' or modified versions of tracks and mods you see running.
