There are only three things I care about regarding conversions ; real road, surface poly count, and AI. Nothing else matters. I vote that modders keep cranking 'em out... Also, I won't pay a dime for eye candy...
Yeah, I'm with Galaga. Pretty tracks are better than not=pretty tracks, but graphics is far down on the list. Real Road is #1 for me. It is what truly separates rF2 from rF1. I understand a lot of track modders are learning though and some of the tracks with no RR are learning tracks. I hope those tracks are spruced up with RR support and re-released. Those DTM tracks are the best example of tracks that are almost there but not useful due to their being no RR. Let's hope we see a working Paul Ricard with RR come out soon.
I'd be a lot more concerned about permissions if the original authors all had proper permission in the first place (for rF1). Most of the time they did not.
What's the point of all the technological advancement if you're racing in a Mario Kart 64 level? Goofy colours and pop-in don't belong in rFactor 2. Your attitude is keeping rF2 back.
I have to agree If all that was required was rf1 plus RR we'd have had rf2 years ago Reflections are a big miss in these conversions, not to mention very dated looking textures etc
I think that reflections and shadows are very nice but as long they are affecting FPS I personally care much more about realroad. Silverstone is very nice but I need to lower the settings a lot to play smothly. In my case I am a little bit selfish I recognise. When I get a more powerful machine I might better appreciate visual details. I am with galaga and guy on this. enviado mediante tapatalk
So you´re saying that this track below suits you and that theres no problem having 1995 graphics regarding having those 3 parameters? Wouldnt be easier for all if ISI implement RealRoad in RF1?
I don't have a great computer, so I have to turn down a lot of stuff, but I don't consider clean textures, smooth road surface and absence of flickering to be eye-candy. One more year of sloppy tracks and everyone will abandon rF2 for pCars, AC and iRacing v5 or whatever update they'll have. If a game has bad performance and looks awful, even Real Road can't save it. I know the amount of rF1 tracks is dreamy, but I'd rather learn better modelled tracks that I didn't know before than race on a bad, old and ugly track model. No offense to the builders, of course. Even the good-looking tracks have spotty performance and uneven AI. I've only had rF2 for 6 months and I'm starting to get fed up, imagine the veterans.
Max shadows and high reflections are fps hungry, but on med shadow or low settings for reflections they don't knock fps very much as far as my pc goes (which isn't an i7 sli-Titan triple screen beast by the way) I see why people want all these circuits in rf2, we all do but seriously I get a more immersive experience in my league using rf1 than on some of these rf2 conversions. I get both sides here, seriously I do. But rf2 can't be reduced to rf1 plus RR, surely?
Yes. I will see that building maybe once. When I am on track turning laps, all that eye candy stuff fades away and I don't even notice it. As long as the track itself is good none of that bothers me. The things that bother me are when realroad comes in all wrong and I can't see where the rubber is or where the marbles are. Bad surfaces (like gravel traps) that don't act like they should. Poor road surface (I hate repeating patterns that make the road look like a table cloth) that makes it hard to see where the line is. But stuff like that crappy looking house, that will not have any effect at all on the racing.
Do you ever see the racing line getting paler instead of darker? It happens to me even on some ISI tracks.
The Paul Ricard track is a must for rF2, great for prototype racing. I hope RJames or someone else comes through with a good conversion. Cheers
Yeah I have seen this and it is an artistic decision. I think it's because Pirellis in F1 don't rubber in like older tires did. The line doesn't get darker in some places, it kind of gets lighter but you can see it. The Loch is weird like that.
It's because of marbles. The contrast between racing line and off line is so big becasue of them. They are so much easier to spot and makes the part of a track so darker compared to the racing line which is cleaner. Also for example pirellis in F1 are harder to rub into the road surface so racing is handled on cleaned line rather than on rubbered line. Here's a riddle for you: Why racing line for example on loch drummond shines so much especially when sun is low. ^^
Guy, i respect what you say but i cant agree with you on this. Basically you´re saying that if you have the road surface and the car then all be fine....So why we need track modders? We can simply use a white screen with road surface and car cockpit, as long as we have realroad..... I think we need also some good enviroment. Thats one of the things that boosts the drving immersion.
Somebody still needs to build the track surface. To me the road surface and the areas directly surrounding it (curbs, grass, gravel traps, guardrails) are the most important thing about a track. It's where you're actually driving on and what will fill 75% of your screen. That doesn't mean anything else is unimportant, but whether a grandstand consists of 10000 polys instead of 1000 and uses many more unique texture maps taking up video ram is something that will have much less of an effect than if you have edges in your corners or 2d curbs. It's not a question of either road surface or trackside objects though, it's one of priority.
This. I'm a vet I guess... And I'm fed up, a lot. How can a game that looks this much away from up to date have this bad performance? Yay, realroad is there, but not quite there yet...
