Motion Blur compared to Shadow Blur
- Thread starter nipzon
- Start date
88mphTim
racesimcentral.net
We don't have any motion blur. By a different name or not, we don't have it. Motion blur simply blurs (and perhaps masks) the base art. We may do it at some point in replays, etc.
johnsclander
Registered
Motion blur is the first thing i switch off in every game i ever played.
Jamezinho
Registered
Guy Moulton
Registered
So what is shadow blur? I turn it on or off and I really don't notice any difference.
Jamezinho
Registered
It's basically anti-aliasing applied to the edges of shadows to soften them. It should make shadows look a little less defined and jaggy, in theory more realistic.
If you don't notice the difference then leave shadow blur turned off and save performance.
Edit - John beat me to it.
Jamezinho
Registered
I didn't know HOW it was doing it, I learned something today. So, thank you.
I don't know if it is an actual AA process or not, but the end result is similar. That's my understanding if I recall from a thread about shadow blur on this forum (from a long while back).
DrR1pper
Registered
I wouldn't make it analogous to Anti-aliasing because anti-aliasing makes edges sharper (which is a separate issue, AA on shadow edges depends on the shadow map resolution and whether anti-aliasing is able to affect it depends on the render engine and the type of AA used).
Shadow blur softens the edges of the shadow silhouette and it's effect (or strength on a shadow edge) is dependent upon the scene (object shapes, number of light sources, distance from light sources, type of light source, ambient occlusion lighting, etc.)
Below has low res shadow maps, could do with AA but mostly needs higher res shadow map to sharpen the shadow silhouette. Despite the aliased shadows, you can see the edges (under the red hammer looking thing) are in fact soft shadowed.
No shadow blur, just AA:
Shadow map resolution along the left, Shadow blur amount along the top:
In game, i use Shadow: High (increases the shadow map resolution) and Shadow Blur: Optimal (higher looks nicer but i'm not looking at shadows when racing so optimal is a nice compromise).
Last edited by a moderator:
o0thx11380o
Registered
I wish so badly that you guys will add it in at some point. It would give rf2 a much longer future I think.
Jamezinho
Registered
Depth of field in replays would be great but I don't see any point in DOF for driving views.
MarcG
Registered
I dont get why Motion Blur would add lifespan to the game, that's like saying "Track Cams need Lens Flares and it would give rf2 a much much longer future"!!
The future is all about ISI content & Community made content, that's what will give rf2 a longer lifespan.
TMoney
Registered
Motion blur is one of those effects that is a preference. Some people love it, some hate it. Some in between, but factor in the performance hit and most hate it. I always thought it would raise performance since it's blurring out all the beautiful (or not so beautiful) details. If it's something relatively easy to add why not, but I wouldn't waste precious time that could be better spent elsewhere, just saying.
Depth of field blur in replays is great in terms of getting that "I'm actually watching a real-life race on television" feel. Unfortunately that seems to be what most people seem to want, instead of the "I'm actually physically at the track" feel. The realistic looking replays is what most people associate with good graphics. Then add in the fact that the blurring also helps with far away low graphics stuff like LODs popping in/out, aliasing, low poly objects etc. etc. and it's a win-win situation for DOF blur.
I think replay DOF blur will help improve the general public's opinion of RF2's graphics, but in my opinion what ISI need to focus on more (with regards to replays) is the physical way the cars look. The physics-graphics "connection". Live for speed, IRacing, Richard Burns Rally, and more all do "graphical expression of physics" better than ISI. Not sure if ISI just have a very inefficient way of graphically portraying the physics or what but I really want to see that particular part of the graphics improved. I would choose that ANYDAY over improved shaders, lighting, polycount, etc etc. It's part of the reason why I, to this day (Feb 2014), still enjoy more and am more immersed watching Live for Speed replays than RFactor 2 replays, even though RFactor 2 obviously has much better graphics (except in the physics-to-graphics area of graphics).
I think replay DOF blur will help improve the general public's opinion of RF2's graphics, but in my opinion what ISI need to focus on more (with regards to replays) is the physical way the cars look. The physics-graphics "connection". Live for speed, IRacing, Richard Burns Rally, and more all do "graphical expression of physics" better than ISI. Not sure if ISI just have a very inefficient way of graphically portraying the physics or what but I really want to see that particular part of the graphics improved. I would choose that ANYDAY over improved shaders, lighting, polycount, etc etc. It's part of the reason why I, to this day (Feb 2014), still enjoy more and am more immersed watching Live for Speed replays than RFactor 2 replays, even though RFactor 2 obviously has much better graphics (except in the physics-to-graphics area of graphics).
Jamie Shorting
Registered
^^^^Personally I couldnt' care less about high res. replays but from what I see the average folk talk about it is an important feature. Of course it could be just people blabbering on the internet just like I'm doing now. 