Discussion in 'News & Notifications' started by Christopher Elliott, Jul 27, 2018.
Just to avoid confusion, reflection options are: off, low, high, ultra
Ahhh ok away from PC, thanks
I usually run them higher when not using VR, they also are fine for most of other tracks in VR. But yes, I was probably a bit optimistic with the "low/medium" settings, as I referred to the settings I tried to lower compared to what I usually run.
I'll try to decrease a bit of everything and see if I can get some FPS back.
Edit: yes, with these settings I can get in the 45/90 fps range depending on the part of the track. The only major visual downside are the wires around the track that look very pixelated. The new nVidia graphic cards can't come soon enough.
Low track detail will make decent difference
Shadows off or low at most
Could you suggest which (in your opinion) of the settings are hard to notice in terms of visual quality reduction in CV1? For example, I can't see difference between 2xAA and 5xAA. I guess I am looking for settings to drop without noticeable visual impact. Thanks!
I find that with my 980Ti there is a noticeable difference between AA @ 1, 2, & 3, anything above that is wasted on me or does nowt. I keep it at 2 & have rf2 resolution adjustment scale at 100% (1532x1824) on SteamVR.
@Uff With a 980Ti I have;
Circuit Detail = Medium
Player detail = Full
Opponent Detail = Medium
Texture Detail = Full
Special Effects = Medium
Shadow Blur = Off
Shadows = Off
Soft Particles = Low
Road & environmental Reflection = Off
Rain drops = Off
Visible Vehicles = 15
I can get 90fps once the field spreads on most ISI/S397 tracks/cars but do struggle on some 3rd party content.
I've been out of the game for a while now as my pedals went tits up about a month ago. Just replaced them with some CSPv3's and have been spending today testing out Sebring with various cars. My hands feel completely raw now as the Norma LMP3 car has me hooked.
That car & track combo have taken me back to my early love affair with rF2. The physics, FFB, & now VR is just SO good! Still about 2 seconds off the AI @ 100% but started my Saturday 6 seconds off. Absolutely love that car and track. The immersion has me believing it's the god damn best simulator there is as there are times when going around corners, with the tactile shakers shaking, wheel in hand, & head in the goggles, for a split second I feel like I am there & this car is real.
For me this track & car combination is rF2 at its absolute finest, heads & shoulders above anything else that I currently own and play. Well done & thank you!
Shadow Blur = Off
Is it an heavy effect or you don't like it?
I've gone from triple screens to VR & it always effected my fps with triple screens so the 'Off' setting just followed me through with the transition into VR. I have shadows off, so not sure if shadow blur would be noticed, if at all (?).
Don't get me wrong, I would love to have the shadows set to medium or high but I've never had a system to manage it with triples or VR. Saying that, there are certain track/car combinations where I can set it to medium but on the whole it is just much easier to have it set to off so I don't have to keep adjusting settings dependent on what track/car I choose.
The advice I give is primarily, if you agree to this compromise, to play without rain and / or race close to 12:00 AM (especially no sunset / sunrise / night) and without timescale, the least AI that you can accept (15 or 20), the less AI visible (8 for example), and activate auto FPS limit.
Because lowering the graphics does not help much, at the price of poor visual quality.
In addition lower the AA level 2 or level 1: level 0 = horrible and level 2 to 5 = no difference in FPS.
Disable Rain (thanks @stonec) and lower the shadows: high and optimal, or medium and fast, or OFF.
For post process do not put Low : too ugly. Either nothing, or Medium or High.
So much for my quick tips.
Also avoid the multiclass race.
I don't understand why Shadows have to be so taxing ? I know nothing about coding games or graphics but have watched my fair share of optimisation videos and it seems that using todays Shadows isnt very taxing at all and even Low Shadows don't look all blocky like we have in rF2 !
This is the latest video I watched that showed Shadows not really making a massive performance or visual impact going from High to Low ! Jump to 5:20 .
So why does rF2 Shadows impact and look so different going from Low to High ?
It's probably a isimotor thing. I remember reading that Reiza found what is the issue with shadows in the code but it was not worth investing time to fix it in AMS.
Shadows were already reworked (in rF2) several years back to improve performance and the look. At the time comparisons were made, by people more knowledgeable about this sort of thing, with other leading games where similar issues were shown. Shadows just aren't that easy.
As for that video, first if a setting doesn't make much visual difference it probably won't make much of a difference to performance, second I think even the close shadows in that game, even on High shadows, are fairly blocky (no 'antialiasing' or shadow blur I guess, around the edges) but it's sort of hidden by the terrain they're falling on. Racing games have a basically flat and uniform surface (the track) which highlights any shadow deficiencies.
Not worth fixing in AMS but rF2 is a Sim that is still under construction so maybe it can be "fixed" ?
You are comparing an engine developed by CAPCOM with an engine developed by a very small dev team in comparison. I am not saying, small creative studios can't do mircacles, but with a few throusend creative people it certainly get's easier.
No Mate , im not comparing anything , as i stated I have no clue about engine coding or anything the like and i mearly was /am curious as to why Shadows are the way they are !
i certainly wasnt trying to compare an open world game to a Sim ! I was just curious , Pure and simple !
@Lazza thanks for your reply , that does make sense
Shadows are taxing in many titles that do them realistically. Look at Nvidia PCSS shadows the smash your GPU. Once again it's a trade off with any real-time shadows with accuracy and performance.
I did some testing yesterday (using Sebring Track day with Norma LMP3 - 23AI) adding Shadows & Shadow Blur. I found that I could go up to Medium in Shadows and again as the pack spreads, reach and maintain a pretty consistent 90fps. Adding the lowest level of Shadow Blur (fast) made it difficult to maintain a 90fps. With Shadows only at Medium I noticed that as the lighting started to change (30 minute race starting at 3pm with 5x acceleration in time), at certain points in the track there would be sudden drops to 45fps, even when I was there without any cars around.
I think when you have so many variables in the lighting (time of day, season, location, and therefore the position of the sun & how that effects the casting of the shadow), it's inevitable that shadows are taxing as the sun moves around with those variables positioning the shadows around static and moving objects. The only game that I have been able to bump Shadows up in VR to the highest setting is AC, but then again, there is little difference between their settings in VR. It will be interesting to see how their new graphics engine will cope with shadows and dynamic situations.
Not much to compromise there!
Well in some way you wondered why the difference in shadow quality in rF2 from high to low is so big and why Monster Hunter World has a system that is alot more optimized - and in some way this is a simple comparison. For one thing I like the approach in rF2 as you basicly exactly know the difference between low, medium or high and every setting offers a clear performance and visual difference, wich is a good thing in my book. For my taste there could be even more steps like off, low, medium, high or ultra or very selective options. Why even offer a shadow setting in the graphics options, when the visual difference and performance is allmost neglectable?
What I tried to explain is that a global company like CAPCOM with allmost 3000 employes and over 600 Mio. Dollar/Euro in sales has completely different possibilities when it comes to employing top level coders. They most likely have a very big testing staff, bigger than the rF2 dev team, and a wide range of hardware at hand aswell, wich greatly helps developing and optimizing the respective software they are working on. It is the same when people wonder why PCars looks and runs so good compared to rF2 - the Madness engine was developed with a quite big budget by EA for Need for Speed Shift and SMS took that engine and developed it further. It is quite simple actually, if you just dig below the surface and check the budgets that are behind different platforms. It is also quite clear that there is headroom for the performance and the shadow system itself in rF2 and Marcel allready pointed that out in the Formula E stream with Racedepartement iirc. But we need to be realistic and not expect moster steps in short terms.
@Magus: ACC will be taxing for sure if they completely rely on dynamic lighting systems - wich again is a must if you are adding a full TOD cycle. And my experience with Unreal Engine has not been the best so far when it comes to optimization. But maybe Kunos made a golden shot, who knows. Their limitation of the maximum grid size is telling something different though.
I'm sure you think you are defending S397 by telling this, but actually, you are highlighting the reason why other games are going with proven engines, ie doing the opposite of S397.
Marcel told once that they considered going to a modern engine, but decided against it. How wise a decision was it to try to fix gmotor with their small team and compete against big companies ? I have my idea.
Unless you have big money, the days where you do everything in house are long gone.
Separate names with a comma.