Optimize the graphics engine (performance) in 2023 ?

[pilAUTO]

I would also very much appreciate it if there were more modifiable graphics parameters, on very diverse aspects, and if the available parameters could be adjusted on more levels (in particular a "very low" setting).

Also, to be clear, apart from some recent cars which degrade performance excessively for not a huge and unnecessary visual improvement over other official cars, to be clear I am happy with the performance on a rainless day (without low sun/night).

I hope you understood me well :

What I would find fair is that S397 optimizes specific conditions :

1) Rain and wet road.
2) Sunset and night.

It seems legitimate to me.... We can't all have a GPU at 2000 euros.........

 

[Lazza]

@pilAUTO rain and darkness/long shadows will always be more taxing than nice daylight. The only way to equalize their performance would be to de-optimize the daytime graphics.

Let's say there are probably some optimizations possible (be it some change in approach that doesn't completely change the format of content and render all the current stuff useless, or better options to selectively turn stuff of or make it look not so nice to get better performance (without gaining unfair advantage, like not having raindrops to obscure your vision)), but you'll never get consistent performance across all conditions. Unless you'd prefer it to always run at its worst.

 

[pilAUTO]

@pilAUTO rain and darkness/long shadows will always be more taxing than nice daylight. The only way to equalize their performance would be to de-optimize the daytime graphics.

Let's say there are probably some optimizations possible (be it some change in approach that doesn't completely change the format of content and render all the current stuff useless, or better options to selectively turn stuff of or make it look not so nice to get better performance (without gaining unfair advantage, like not having raindrops to obscure your vision)), but you'll never get consistent performance across all conditions. Unless you'd prefer it to always run at its worst.

Thank you for your answer Lazza.

However, I agree with you, I'm not looking for night/sunset and rain performance to be similar to a day without rain.

I totally agree with what you say.

I may have expressed myself badly because English is not my native language.

I tell you in a brief way how I adjust my graphics because I find that it is the most profitable visually and that the image is magnificent as well : High-performance VR headset (G2), extremely high supersampling for very high sharpness associated with technology CAS for increased sharpness, X8 game AA, visible AI 6 (good enough for me), rearview cull + particles off + clip 50m, circuit detail ultra, cockpit ultra, texture ultra, PP low, ALL OTHER GRAPHICS SETTINGS OFF INCLUDING SHADOWS...... some optimizations in the json (max headlight 0, garage detail 0.01, load cockpit opponent off), Nvidia control panel Max quality (LOD bias clamp, texture max quality without optimizations) and the concession that makes it work : I use the FFR feature which allows me to change the shape of the FOV by increasing the proportions of the horizontal FOV without changing the vertical (oval FOV) and I reduce the size of the FOV by "hiding" the non-essential pixels (compromise) which allows an extremely significant gain in performance.

Also key point, I don't use rain, wet road, sunset/night and I only drive at 01:30 PM.

This set of settings allows for truly exceptional image quality (equivalent to 21.36 Mp before cropping the FOV) :

Ultra sharp, ultra detailed, not aliased, very good performance except in rare cases.

All this to say that I don't expect the rain, wet road, sunset/night to be optimized to the point that there is little difference with the day.

I'm sure you've found that the difference between the two in terms of performance is huge, to me "huge" means excessive.

I just think that a graphics engine optimization effort on these SPECIFIC aspects is necessary and desirable, and in no case do I expect miracles.

To reduce the gap a little would be really good and frankly necessary.

For my part, if they did, I would agree to reduce my image quality a little to integrate these racing conditions.

But currently, it would be necessary without any exaggeration to go from the current image quality which is excellent to a really very mediocre quality to hope to integrate the rain or the sunset/rain in my gaming experience, and not both at the same time.

Honestly, that's overkill.
It's really about IMAGER going from a PS5 to a PS3, and again.

 

[theother5]

I get random tanks in performance after going back to the garage. Nice smooth 120fps, no input lag at all. Then i esc and go for another run, and the frames and input lag goes to shit. I have to exit out and reload the track to fix it.

@doddynco ....Interesting, I have the same problem exactly as you describe and with the same 'fix' which is annoying.
There's little comfort with having company in a sinking ship ... meaning, I'm not happy you also have this problem but where there's two, maybe there's more.

Did you ever raise a bug thread or followup on this is Studio 379?
I'm not seen anything in my search yet.
Asking so that I can add my feedback also?

S!

 

[doddynco]

@doddynco ....Interesting, I have the same problem exactly as you describe and with the same 'fix' which is annoying.
There's little comfort with having company in a sinking ship ... meaning, I'm not happy you also have this problem but where there's two, maybe there's more.

Did you ever raise a bug thread or followup on this is Studio 379?
I'm not seen anything in my search yet.
Asking so that I can add my feedback also?

S!

Yeh I think we are not the only ones. I'm pushing my system quite hard to get 120fps on the Nords, which is fair enough. So when i get a performance issue it is quite obvious. It might not be a visible issue when say you run a 'light' track, or perhaps have a system which can still hit the target fps with the bug happening (something like a gtx4090 running in 2k).

I will open a bug report (which I have done quite a few of over the years) but I always like to be able to at least give a hint into what might be causing a bug. From the devs perspective, a random player, with a different pc, setup, settings ect, getting 'fps issues' is a needle in a haystack.

 

[theother5]

Yeh I think we are not the only ones. I'm pushing my system quite hare to get 120fps on the Nords, which is fair enough. So when i get a performance issue it is quite obvious. It might not be a visible issue when say you run a 'light' track, or perhaps have a system which can still hit the target fps with the bug happening (something like a gtx4090 running in 2k).

I will open a bug report (which I have done quite a few of over the years) but I always like to be able to at least give a hint into what might be causing a bug. From the devs perspective, a random player, with a different pc, setup, settings ect, getting 'fps issues' is a needle in a haystack.

Indeed, I understand fully the needle in the haystack sentiment.
I'll look out of your bug report and if I can, I'll also put up my experience also.

S!

 

[Binny]

Cannot believe 1 person even Paul from s397 would not answer this question/post ?
I would believe it, if it was MSG running the forum not S397.
Its been asked many times with no real answer.

 

[Paul Jeffrey]

Thanks for the post / thread.

Performance is something that we feel is at a reasonable point at this moment in time, although of course it could always do with further refinements and improvements - especially in the outlined situations such as weather and night running.

At the moment, I believe we aren't explicitly looking to do a thorough outright performance pass on the sim, certainly not in the immediate term anyway, however I'll happy pass the request on to the development team for us to consider into the planning going forward.

Cheers

 

[CeeBee]

Thanks for the post / thread.

Performance is something that we feel is at a reasonable point at this moment in time, although of course it could always do with further refinements and improvements - especially in the outlined situations such as weather and night running.

At the moment, I believe we aren't explicitly looking to do a thorough outright performance pass on the sim, certainly not in the immediate term anyway, however I'll happy pass the request on to the development team for us to consider into the planning going forward.

Cheers

Well done, keep up pumping out great tracks and cars instead of budget polygon ones.
id rather see the graphics team update older isi tracks and cars to new standards.

 

[Binny]

Thanks for the post / thread.

Performance is something that we feel is at a reasonable point at this moment in time, although of course it could always do with further refinements and improvements - especially in the outlined situations such as weather and night running.

At the moment, I believe we aren't explicitly looking to do a thorough outright performance pass on the sim, certainly not in the immediate term anyway, however I'll happy pass the request on to the development team for us to consider into the planning going forward.

Cheers

TYVM for your str8 up answer, it goes along way with some ppl.

 

[pilAUTO]

Thanks for the post / thread.

Performance is something that we feel is at a reasonable point at this moment in time, although of course it could always do with further refinements and improvements - especially in the outlined situations such as weather and night running.

At the moment, I believe we aren't explicitly looking to do a thorough outright performance pass on the sim, certainly not in the immediate term anyway, however I'll happy pass the request on to the development team for us to consider into the planning going forward.

Cheers

It's nice to have an answer on the subject thank you.

We know what to expect over the next few months, if we want better performance with same visual, especially in rainy conditions or day/night cycle, we will have to try to improve our hardware if we can.

And thank you indeed for talking about it to the S397 team, who may know that discussing it among yourselves will raise this concern a little in the list of priorities.

Good evening Paul!!

 

[AlexHeuskat]

Hi,
I will report my results with i9 13900K/4090 with triple 1440p (120hz) at MAX (Antialiasing X8, all ultra, only PP filter at Medium) with Long Beach track.
I use 20 AI, I start last, and I stay last and follow AI, it's the worst scenario possible.

- day : 120fps constant (checked)
- night : 100fps at start, then higher when the cars spread out (almost checked)
- night + normal rain : always +60fps, Avg 80fps, 60/70fps if I follow with a medium distance AI with a lot of rain particle (not checked but playable)
- day + heavy rain : Avg 85fps, less GPU demanding than night+rain (not checked but playable)
- I will test sunrise/sunset later

Conclusion:
Only the day has 120 fps constant, but night and rain are playable, I think the 5090 will keep 120fps for rain and night, but in 2 years.
For the moment, 60/80/90/110fps by night/rain, with the worst scenario, is 100% playable, and my monitors are native gsync (1-120hz), and the game is very beautiful, but remember I use a +4000€ PC with 4090/13900K, it's far better than my old 9900K/ 3080, I'm very happy about the upgrade (+110% gain), but I will wait for 5090 to crank the game at 120 fps with any condition.

 

[sg333]

Hi,
I will report my results with i9 13900K/4090 with triple 1440p (120hz)at MAX (Antialiasing X8, all ultra, only PP filter at Medium) with Long Beach track.
I use 20 AI, I start last, and I stay last and follow AI, it's the worst scenario possible.

Out of curiosity, what is performance scaling like with 1 x 1440p screen against 3 x 1440p screens?

 

[AlexHeuskat]

Out of curiosity, what is performance scaling like with 1 x 1440p screen against 3 x 1440p screens?

wooow, 1 monitor 1440p is almost 3X less demanding vs 3x1440p....but I need to test with only one tomorrow
And I will buy 1 OLED 48" 4K, it's less GPU demanding and more beautiful than 3x1440p

 

[stonec]

rearview cull + particles off + clip 50m

Rearview cull is on or off? I trialed this setting years ago. Rearview cull off basically makes the game render everything you see in the front viewport to also be rendered in the rearview mirrors. You will be losing quite a bit of performance for objects that are in many cases impossible to see in the small viewport of the rearview mirror.

This is actually why some console racing games don't support rearview mirror at all. It's a performance hog, but in rF2 I feel this aspect is fairly optimized with default settings.

The clip at 50 m may or may not help. I tested clip years ago and back then it had no impact on performance, but cull definitely had.

 

[stonec]

Yeh I think we are not the only ones. I'm pushing my system quite hard to get 120fps on the Nords, which is fair enough. So when i get a performance issue it is quite obvious. It might not be a visible issue when say you run a 'light' track, or perhaps have a system which can still hit the target fps with the bug happening (something like a gtx4090 running in 2k).

I will open a bug report (which I have done quite a few of over the years) but I always like to be able to at least give a hint into what might be causing a bug. From the devs perspective, a random player, with a different pc, setup, settings ect, getting 'fps issues' is a needle in a haystack.

I noticed the same on Nords a few days ago. Loaded track, around 40 FPS, escaped, back to track and normal 120 FPS again.

I'm fairly certain this has to do with memory usage somehow. It tends to happen on big tracks when I also have some browser tabs etc. open in the background. I think the game is not being prioritized and fully loaded into VRAM (GPU RAM) and performance tanks since it has to use system RAM, or worse, if that is full, page file, but I think it's the first one being the issue.

This issue is actually not new, but dates at least as far back as the first rF2 DX11 implementation.

 

[pilAUTO]

Rearview cull is on or off? I trialed this setting years ago. Rearview cull off basically makes the game render everything you see in the front viewport to also be rendered in the rearview mirrors. You will be losing quite a bit of performance for objects that are in many cases impossible to see in the small viewport of the rearview mirror.

This is actually why some console racing games don't support rearview mirror at all. It's a performance hog, but in rF2 I feel this aspect is fairly optimized with default settings.

The clip at 50 m may or may not help. I tested clip years ago and back then it had no impact on performance, but cull definitely had.

Yeah rearview cull ON, particles OFF, clip 50m

Notice on 50m clip : the loose in immersion exist, but is ultra (ultra) small.

I didn't test the real impact in term of perf since a long time for rearview, I use always these settings.

 

[pilAUTO]

This issue is actually not new, but dates at least as far back as the first rF2 DX11 implementation.

I confirm this.

 

[mjo1704]

stonec said when he reloaded the track he got normal 120 fps for some reason the game doesn't load all the shaders. eg i have to reload the track every time because the first time i load the track the wet track reflections don't work and the puddles are black but when i reload the track the reflections work i have 32 gig ram memory and rtx 3090
24 gig vram so it's not a problem due to lack of memory

 

[CeeBee]

Another thing to consider is if you actually need more than 60fps for simracing on screens, my monitors are Sony 100hz TVs but I've locked them in vsync at 60hz for the last year or so, no appreciable difference in game play or ffb (my Vive runs at 90hz and feels exactly the same)

But at 100hz the GPU is hot AF and turning corners into lots of geometry can cause stutters on my system. Same deal with MSFS, since I locked to vsync 60fos I can run it on triples at ultra and never stutter.

The only game where more fps == better gameplay for me is modern warfare and other fps shooters.