If you go by what the fans here say, the value of laser scanning becomes basically 0 after the track has been re-asphalted. Because we already know accurate layouts (elevation, radius) can be produced without laser scan (Silverstone, Indy, etc.), so the only point in laser scanning becomes to catch the finer details of the road bumps, which are lost/altered in re-asphalting.
Do the cars get an update every time the real life ones change something or the regulation changes? If they do, that's awesome, but if not then I don't think it discredits the fact that it was accurate at one point in time and it was worth it to get the data. An accurate C6-R from 2009 is still an accurate car. An accurate C7R GTE from 2015 is still a very good and accurate car to have, even if they e.g. changed the steering wheel or weight a bit. The same for the tracks. If one argument for not gathering data is "it will change later", then that can and should also be applied to the cars.
@Amarildo Junior Your (long) post sums things up very well. It should be read in its entirety, but for me it's correct because the focus is on the outcome. The arguments (not yours) I don't get are: On the non-LS side, "there's no point because the surface changes from year to year anyway, or gets resurfaced or reprofiled and then it's wrong." As others have said, scanning the track provides accurate data on layout and cambers, not just the small bumps. It's better to drive on a track that you know is 5 years old in surface characteristics but is accurate, than a track that you can see isn't right. Plus any developing bumps (with track use) or even an overall smoothing due to resurfacing, can be remodeled later without rescanning in order to keep the track close to current. On the LS side: "a track that isn't scanned will never provide the same experience because it's missing all those fine bumps, and non-LS tracks are wrong in layout as proven by track x and track y - here's a youtube clip showing the differences." Scanning absolutely provides the data (let's assume for a moment it's perfectly accurate) to get a track layout correct, but nothing stops non-scanned tracks from being close enough for the difference to not be noticeable. Tracks where those differences are noticeable could be reworked, and probably should have been (time permitting) before release, assuming decent references were available. Major bumps, the ones discussed by real life drivers on well known tracks, or those that are evident from footage taken at the track, are again able to be modeled without scanning by recognising that they're there and adding them to the track. The player can't know whether they're exactly the right size, but if they're feeling/seeing bumps in the same places they see them in footage then there's no discernible difference to a scanned track. Fine surface details (major bumps aside), LS or non-LS the player doesn't know what's right and what isn't. The assumption with a scanned track is that they are, but ultimately it probably makes little difference to car behaviour (which is what we're simulating). Anyway, if a track has 1cm x 1cm mesh details, what is the game going to do with ~70000 points acting on the tyre tread each second at 100kph? Even rFactor 2 isn't going to take most of those into account. Big bumps, camber, and layout are the keys here.
same value or I'd argue more, the kinks & bumps in the pre-resurfaced version provide a better experience imo, a re-scan of new surface & updated virtual track is useful for driver training of course so they know the track better prior to getting in a real car the outdated (after real surface is re-done) virtual track then becomes an historic version virtually captured forever has there been any more mentions from s397 about the laser scanned tracks coming to rfactor2 ?
Not true As a fan of Nordschleife, I would be very happy if the data collected by S397 in "March 2018" was used to make a good circuit by really exploiting the data, even if in December 2018 some plots of tracks are paved again. Otherwise we never finish! I believe that the essential is, on the one hand : the quality and the precision of the data ; on the other hand the quality of exploitation of the data for that it really impact the physics, physics which are the best reminder of the market; and the latest DLC cars use real data. This is starting to become really relevant LS circuits, but it all depends on what you do with that data. And the graphics must be very similar to reality, otherwise it's a mess. Anyway the best circuit in the world is a fictional circuit not yet invented created by a gifted passionate who would have the sense of infinity detail ..........
Laserscan is not necessary to catch the finer details of the road bumps. I remember when Silverstone 1.14 was launched, and a new surface model was added that was greatly praised by everyone. This line is from the release press release: - Added and enhanced 3D modeled surface details based on accurate data. I have the memory of a post, of tuttle or Luc in which some more of this data was mentioned, but I can not find it. It was some high frequency data supplied by the circuit owners or something like that.
If you had the 1991 NSX with the 2017 physics then that would be a discredit. But 1991 car 1991 physics would be fine.
Still think this discussion is probably 2-3years too early,the only way ls tracks become viable is if s397 make rf2 reach its full potential or near it,without it new members of an decent number won’t come,and so ls will remain not financially viable imho If the numbers come then why not have ls tracks,but is this a case of the chicken and egg
I brought this question up not very long ago. I fully agree with you. Every track has been previously designed (and hence it has been a fictional track for some time) before it was actually built. COTA is a very good example. Herman Tilke designed first a virtual track to make sure it was fun to drive. He adjusted it until he was happy. As an experienced fiction track designer I can guarantee that this trial and error process can take quite some time until you are fully happy with the result. In today's engineering, pretty much everything is computer simulated prior to be constructed. Not applying all existing techniques has to be considered a bad design method. Therefore be sure that the debate of accuracy is not trivial. In the near future all new tracks will be designed this way so that the track provides a challenging and fun experience. Furthermore and as I have shown in my EuskoTestTrack thread. The track design process was lacking some tools in order to have an idea of how the didn't cars will behave in it. As I promised yesterday I will do a presentation of the tool In have developed to help me in my track design process. The tool will not be made public since I a have not decided what I want to do with it. I may sell it to Tilke himself
This place is Nordscleife's thread. If you want to base on actual data on a long track like Nordscleife, I think that laser scan is more reasonable.
Take a while & study the complexities of the track surface ( & surrounding area ) in this pic https://m.imgur.com/a/Sx95X Laser scanning is pretty much the only way of producing a quality track to a now expected & current standard as standard set in other sims Actually posting a pic in a forum seems like to much hassle now days
@Adrianstealth Take a while & study the complexities of the track surface ( & surrounding area ) in this pics Laser scanning is ONLY OTHER way of producing a quality track to a now expected & current standard as standard set in other sims
They are until one uses & gets very familiar with a pack of laser scanned tracks There are a few really good tracks in rfactor2 ( good considering they are not lasered ) , the historic tracks are the best in rfactor2 too (compared to historic tracks in any other sim)
How can you feel the difference and judge if you have never raced in some of those tracks in real life ?
I feel a massive difference Even if I have zero intention of using the real life version , the lasered version is still usually light years ahead ( as the real version also is ) The lasered version usually has a large amount of extra fine details in the track surface ( not referring to simple bumps either ) + less basic
You have not raced at Malaysia in 2007 right? If you look video below and then go and do few laps at ISI Malaysia 2007. How can you possibly know and feel the difference if that track is laser scanned or not ?
Would be good if there was a blind test put together of ls vs non ls tracks,interesting to see how many people would guess right.
You can add those fine details without any laser scan, all it needs is a good algorithm that generates random noise to the road. Marcel explained this in discord some time ago. So assuming that we have a track that nobody will drive on in real life, it can be made to feel similar as laser scanned.
my point can not be made in text on a forum Only way for those not in the know Is to spend some time using iracings tracks, zero disagreements between us then The debate is fun though (-;
