Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Spinelli, Nov 24, 2013.
You went wrong at "The way the game currently looks". You can only rate performance from that for a graphics demo that isn't doing anything but drawing graphics. Other games may look better and run faster, and some of that may well be the graphics engine doing better things and doing everything faster. It may also be them doing less 'thinking'. I doubt the devs on either side know exactly how any particular element compares to one of the other sims, and we know a lot less.
We still get people comparing the graphics of FPS games to rFactor etc - yet when you look at what those games are doing physics wise, very little has changed in 15 years. You can load up a very popular shooter from this year, walk up to a waist-high wall, and be completely unable to move past it because there's a roof above you. But you can run around like a maniac for 40 mins straight without slowing down at all, or becoming more unsteady when you stop to take a sniper shot, etc. So you're superhuman in one moment and then dumber than a 1 year old the next. (and yes, I know some games have implemented some 'features' that reduce these specific issues somewhat, but what it boils down to is your physical interaction with the environment is quite low fidelity. That doesn't cut it in a driving sim because it's all about physical interaction of your car components and the environment - which makes me wonder why after all these graphical improvements we're still getting calls for better graphics when we don't even have KERS!!!)
Better UI and HUD... clean and with better visuals, can not be hard to achieve better than we have now, I hate It from day one and including an "advanded" options with lots of .PLR options we have top tweak now manually. Mirrors render distance, render distance, options about particles in cockpit (we can do this in .PLR but not in game)...
With that I would be happy for days, sure.
Starting to make me remember IL2 Cliff of Dover, great hope...
C'mon...nothing can be as bad as Cliffs of Dover man...hahahaha XD
Physics are computed on the CPU. Graphics computed on the GPU. The CPU interacts with the GPU, but in 99% of applications, won't be a bottleneck. You are wrong.
Can't render graphics that haven't "happened" yet, especially when everything needs to be tied together with as little "latency" as possible...and in simulation software, things always seem to be CPU bound in a weird single threaded way...
...also you should look up GPGPU stuff...things aren't as black and white as you portray them
rF2 has bottleneck in graphics department, that is just a fact. There is no reason to deny it. If you don't believe me, make a mod and track which has only ~10 polygons, no textures and all shaders are T1. You will get very good FPS even with the high fidelity physics.
sound, triple screen, multi view and any thing else for emersion....
I doubt ISI are going to start supplying weed. But we'll see.
I think they should start work on the UI as well, the multiplayer experience is really held back by not having a more informative UI.
5.1 sounds are important too if they still don't have them.
While I get the core of this argument, RF2 pretty clearly shows in game if it's GPU or CPU limited. In cases where it's clearly GPU limited you can't point to the advanced physics as the excuse. Anytime where reducing FSAA or reducing screen res leads to an increase in frames it's 99% not the CPU doing the bottlenecking.
Yeah, I oversimplified my argument
All I was trying to say is it's hard to make an absolute comparison between different games based on FPS and 'how they look' (which is pretty subjective anyway). Obviously if reducing graphics settings improves framerate then the CPU isn't at a hard limit, though the CPU will be involved to some extent in working out which objects should be drawn etc (so CPU is needed for more objects, which from a user point of view might be included in 'graphics', and presumably things like shadows might also take some CPU time).
I guess I'm just afraid we're going to keep pushing down a 'better graphics' path when out of 4 basic areas that spring to mind (graphics, physics, audio, gameplay) it seems to have already had the most work since the beta launch. We know the physics is mostly there, graphics is now 'pretty good', so I'd like to see some more work done with the other two.
Forget everything currently doing and busy yourselves with the black rubber, powertrain and bodywork please.
Garage: the values should be shown as a slider which shows maximum and minimum instead just numbers. It's complicated to figure out at a glance, what the actual values are set to (max, min, in between, how much in between).
And the colors showing tire temps should be different from the background. Hard to read.
Stop wasting system resources with the cpu rendering a unlimited amont of frames to the gpu and maxing both out all game dev's do it what a waste
it is using about 40% of the cpu and gpu when there is no need for it cap your pre-render frames.
It makes for a different game ffb is lot better well everything is just better.
Another one that makes everything so much more annoying then it has to be, car contacts.
This is just 1 out of so many things that happen (warping, solid cars that are made out of diamond, ...)
LOL they better improve the UI if they are going to supply weed
Tim Weathley is working on this but he will need beta-testers for this and to the grenade launchers. My guess is not both at same time.
Separate names with a comma.