PLEASE give us a real laser scanned version of the NORDSCHLEIFE !!!!!!

Magzire said:
LOL there is some hardcore fanboys here with their heads so far up their ..... to rather a non scanned track.
Click to expand...

Laser scanned or not, doesn't matter if it's surveyed properly like ISI Silverstone/Indy/Atlanta etc. Laser scanning is just a technique. The reason I'd rather see something else than Nords is a) it would take over a year to complete for ISI track team b) my league has no use of it, only endurance leagues will find it useful. My reasoning is perfectly sound, besides I can already hotlap around Nords in other sims.
 
There is a laser scanned version in rf2, but it isn't legal (illegal conversion), it is really good. But it is difficult to find it.... Google Google eh eh
 
Unless you plan on racing the actual track, there simply is no reason for a laser-scanned version.
You'll gain absolutely zero benefit and it'll only tie up resources.
 
Saabjock said:
Unless you plan on racing the actual track, there simply is no reason for a laser-scanned version.
You'll gain absolutely zero benefit and it'll only tie up resources.
Click to expand...

Untill you drive it, and every other non scanned (con)version feels like it's not the same track...
 
wgeuze said:
Untill you drive it, and every other non scanned (con)version feels like it's not the same track...
Click to expand...

It's not that much different. I drove the DJC/Tosch Nordshleife and it took me only a couple of laps to get on pace with AC laser scanned one, it didn't feel like I had to learn a new circuit and not once did I get a feeling of being lost. A couple of corners are a bit tighter and narrower than in the modded version, but overall it's similar enough for me.
 
There is a lot of différences between laser scanned and the version of Tosch. I can't agree with what you said. Many corrners are différent, and not only corners, bumps, elevation changes, etc. etc., graphics compared to reality.

*If YOU DON'T LIKE SPECIFICALLY THIS track, THE TOSCH VERSION HOWEVER IS GOOD. BUT WHEN YOU LOVE THIS TRACK, YOU CAN NOT SATISFY BY THE TOSCH VERSION.

!!!It's that simple!!!
 
LesiU said:
@stontec
Have you driven the track in real life?
Click to expand...

Nope, why would I need to drive it in real life? I assume Assetto Corsa version is basically 1:1 with real life unless they failed with laser scan. So since I got used to AC version within few laps after only having practised on DJC/Tosch, it means DJC/Tosch one can't be too much wrong.
 
I'd say, it should be a pleasure to drive there in real life, not a need ;-)
For me (been there, on the real track), differences between those versions are too big, too noticable to the point, I just don't drive on what we have in rF2. But of course, if for others that's still good enough, then good for them :-)
 
LesiU said:
I'd say, it should be a pleasure to drive there in real life, not a need ;-)
For me (been there, on the real track), differences between those versions are too big, too noticable to the point, I just don't drive on what we have in rF2. But of course, if for others that's still good enough, then good for them :-)
Click to expand...
Thanks for ruining my dreams. Even though I've never been there I felt like I've driven it a million times, now that's gone [emoji12]
On a serious note, the resources required to make a laser scanned version mean that ISI will most likely never do one. Tim mentioned as much before and while things can always change I just don't see it happening. But, as has been suggested before, a mod team getting a hold of the required data and then doing it for a price would be our best chance. Weather it makes sense financially I have no clue, judging by the fact that no one has attempted it yet I guess it doesn't.
TK

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G800A using Tapatalk
 
I realise it might not suit the laser-scan purists, but if a track is noticeably 'wrong', or is measurably different from some reference (let's say google earth, for example), I don't see why it's not feasible to bend/shape the existing track so it more closely follows that reference. For sure it's possible to move game objects arbitrarily (even the GMTs directly, without any need for an editor), I've no doubt it's possible to also rejig the maps if necessary (though I'm not sure it would be) should the angle of faces change a little.

Not saying it would be straightforward, but it has to be possible. If you tweak a track so it's no longer noticeably/measurably wrong, I know laser-scan fans still won't like it (though any laser scan track has its own approximations, albeit on a smaller scale) but it would probably be close enough for most.
 
Elevation is not accurate in google earth.

It should be pretty easy to check how accurate the 2D layout is.

It can also be compared with AC version.

Enviado desde mi ONE A2001 mediante Tapatalk
 
Moving objects is the simple part, fitting the surface to new elevations including all walls and stuff that is continuosly surrounding the track is much harder, because you need to adjust each vertex. Depending on how detailed the track mesh is, it may take a long time, much longer than was spent on this conversion at least. It sounds to me like pointless work unless you have good reference data.
 
i hope some modder make the illegal version prettier.it has great lay out( off course its laser scanned conversion from some game )but graphically its way worse than toban, matsusaka or other isi tracks.
 
stonec said:
Moving objects is the simple part, fitting the surface to new elevations including all walls and stuff that is continuosly surrounding the track is much harder, because you need to adjust each vertex. Depending on how detailed the track mesh is, it may take a long time, much longer than was spent on this conversion at least. It sounds to me like pointless work unless you have good reference data.
Click to expand...

You can attack a whole folder (well, multiple folders really, if you wanted) of GMTs and change the vert positions directly. I've done it myself for other reasons, but not in a way that would allow the sort of tweaking/bending you might want to do in this situation. I've only got a vague idea of how you'd want to approach that, and no idea on how to make it friendly (ie graphical). But if you could translate an arbitrary old location to a new location (based on some sort of input grid/data), the actual vert moving isn't tough at all.

*Clarification: I mean directly editing the .GMT files using a tool, not opening up GMTs in an editor and doing stuff. But the tool I made for very different purposes is very... raw. No real interface to speak of, it just reads in vert data and writes out new vert positions into the GMTs... my point simply being it is possible to do, and I wonder if someone has a reason it doesn't work. I suspect there might be something because I haven't seen indications of track layouts being altered in this way before; it seems a completed track is left that way, except for a little fixing here and there.
 
That's FFD, and it's really working rubbish in this case as it's not only "moving" but also deforming and it does not keep assets linked to each other while applying deformation forces. As I suggested several times, these kind of "fix" are slower, and most of the time worse, than a scratch&fresh made loft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top