Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Rich Goodwin, Sep 22, 2016.
Each time you read laser scanned a dollar would be nice
if your used to lasered tracks (changed the name slightly) then the equivalent non lasered really does not feel usable there's very few exceptions ( ISI's lime rock on the basis its great work and been resurfaced since iracings version & isi's Indianapolis )
most of the rf2 tracks are unusable for me, except the isi/mod historics and go kart tracks
I think no lasered tracks will be the stumbling point, this is why if there is to be no laser tracks chargeable DLC
then more focus on historics as these tracks can not be lasered anyhow as they don't exist in their historical state
if in sim racing one uses lasered tracks pretty much 100% then one becomes spoilt & a big chunk of the current sim racing market are spoilt by this
I'll settle for $.25!
I love the idea of accurate tracks. I miss being able to relive at home what I see on tv on my favorite tracks, and am never against accuracy. I have pestered enough people and tried getting enough references for that . One issue iR found itself in, and so did AC, was to be stuck with only being able to release laser scanned tracks. That means no access to anything historical. A system using the most accurate data when possible would be lovely, but continued and improved research on non-surveyed or scan tracks is a must.
Historic ISI tracks are good because 1) there's no real other game with them available 2) they are overall reasonable enough. Imagine getting the modded 1967 Spa from GPL into rF2? That one had a ridiculous level of research and work to recreate the track layout accuracy and environment as best as possible. Historic Monza's Variante Ascari is possibly the track's biggest offender. Now, you got nothing to compare to but then you gotta wonder, how much of the issue is in your head from knowing it is not as it could be? Don't take this the wrong way. I'm on pretty much the same boat as you. There are very few tracks I like to drive and it's more difficult when I've either driven them laser scanned or driven/ridden/walked in real life. For example, Spa, you can't tell but the cars are still going uphill at a reasonable degree after Eau Rouge until Les Combes. Or Monza with its subtle elevations on corners. Or Suzuka, how Dunlop in the game has too much of a dip or how Degner or the exit of the Casio triangle have more pronounced camber. Of all recent tracks I only have kept ECAR's Bugatti circuit.
But then sometimes you can come across survey data, CAD, or whatever source, that contains enough. For some things I'd be happy with GPS data being matched with elevation, with camber best-estimated from onboard footage and feedback and photos from who has been on track. I can't imagine how tough it must be to drive the ovals, Bathurst, Laguna Seca, Le Mans, Sonoma Raceway or Circuit of the Americas in a game after trying it in iRacing, of course, but recreating something like a pre-2002 Hockenheim would only get you so far without research and artistic interpretation.
Within different communities there are extremely high quality tracks recreated as accurately as possible without laser scanning - sometimes with it! - that would be excellent additions. Longford is a prime example in rF2. Or if you recall the 2007 detailed map of Spa Francorchamps, mentioned here. It's a matter of acquiring the tracks and releasing under the unofficial names, though that way all official sponsorship elements must be removed. But imagine having Assetto's Donington Park, Riverside, Paul Ricard, Bridgehampton, or the ongoing Montréal, available here? Long post short, it is possible to have highly detailed tracks without laser scanning yourself but it requires the investment and effort. There is stuff out there.
ps: seeing iRacing's Le Mans made me a little weak at the knees. If the '89 Nissan GTP gets friends I'll have to consider reconsidering that game.
The only real question I have at the moment is.....When is Marcel and S397 going to address THIS community rather than interviews with other sites? This community is the one that helps keep this great game going, yet we are seeing very little staff interaction here (unless it is Chris telling people to calm down).
agreed historic are good as no laser available, new ones shoud be lasered though imo
it does not have to be a big world famous track either
AC does have historic monza which obviously is not lasered
let the good modders supply the tracks that can not be lasered or license obtained
397 charge for the offical lasered and historic as dlc
the best of all worlds.
-yes i brought iracing lemans totally phenomenal and surface is very very detail rich i think it would take a dev 1000 years to do that without lasered surface, all the little details add up & thats not there on non lasered , if going off drive line close to walls the cambers and surface goes all "un-maintained" feeling and no 2 parts are the same
I think Marcel has sense and has decided not to write in these forums (-:
Laser scanning is just a track survey technique, it doesn't mean you cannot produce equally good results with other methods. I compared ISI Silverstone with AC laser scanned Silverstone and noticed that AC track surroundings and buildings were much lower in detail. The road itself was very similar in both.
If ISI would put a stamp saying "laser scanned" on every ISI track released post Silverstone, I bet no one would notice a difference. I think your judgement of ISI tracks is based on prehistoric releases like Sepang and Estoril that were built in 2008 using ancient techniques and no on-site survey.
silverstone was resurfaced since the lasered one i use in iracing so i have no comparison
(apart from driving on the real one but not enough laps and g-forces & fear of death could skew my judgement)
bit in each case i have a direct comparison non lasered can not compete
i find AC lasered lifeless & some doubt they are lasered at all,
iracing techniques seem the very very best , i only really use iracing sim at the moment
ps as I've mentioned there are exceptions but generally people prefer lasered now, ISI's indianapolis is pretty good but then the lasered surface ( & i assume in real life ) in iracings are failry low in character , great layout/track though
best watch an iracing dev vid it explains the level of detail the surface mesh resolution picks up the laser detail of the real life track its fused together etc
once a user really learns the lasered virtual version of the track one realises how it being lasered makes it very different to a non lasered version
( much much less so in AC I'm not a fan of their tracks but would still take theirs over a non lasered)
If you want an exact replica of real life and plan to race on the real track, then I can see a point in what iRacing is doing and they are probably doing the most accurate tracks, no denying in that. Very few sim racers get a chance to drive the real track though, is why I think it's not a massive selling point, what AC does is enough for the average joe and it's no better than ISI's latest tracks.
As with lime rock, tracks get resurfaced and the surface even naturally changes a bit every year, new bumps are formed etc., so what you have in the sim is already wrong a year later compared to real life.
I've not told anyone to "calm down" I politely asked someone to "tone it down" when talking to other users on here because I'd like to avoid you fighting with each other. We are listening to your feedback, but the only thing we ask is that you keep it civil and continue a productive discussion, as much as possible.
My post was a generalisation, Chris. Being specific you have "tone it down", "please try and avoid getting personal it serves absolutely no purpose here on the forums", "Keep it civil please everyone, or I'll have to close this thread" all ways of telling or asking people to calm down that you have used. I am not attacking you, in fact I commend you on keeping the discussion objective; my point was that it "seems" as if that is the only interaction staff have with the community lately.
I think those are two separate issues. I’m here to encourage a productive, non-confrontational discussion among forum members. That means I will ask anyone who becomes insulting or personally attacks another member to “tone it down.” I agree that it would be sad if that was my only interaction with everyone on here – that’s not my intention at all!
"Staff" on here, myself included, when time permits, are always happy to talk to the community and answer your questions
Chris does that mean this forum will remain "the" RF2 forum for Studio397? Or are they gonna create their own one like Reiza did?
Only ask as I have some wish list ideas but won't post them here if they're gonna fall on deaf ears thanks
No worries, you can keep posting your ideas here
EDIT: Sorry I didn't answer your question, yes we will be working on moving the rFactor 2 forums.
Ok cool, I will post them here but if need be copy to the new forums when it happens, thanks Chris
This, as I'm racing in a number of kart tracks very often I can notice track is not the same even in short time-frame as one week, mainly kerbs are continuously changing from one day to another, it's a matter of centimeters but it can change the way you drive. Sepang now has fully resurfaced to the point F1 teams admit their previous data will be useless to initial car setup. In addition, rainy places have much water flowing on and under the track, creating and moving bumps, vegetation roots raises the track border, etc. Track geometry is a alive thing.
This is the why I can see no point on doing a laser scanning with billion of points. All you'll need is a decent topographical surveying with correct elevation, cambers and main bumps and that's it, more accuracy than that is more for marketing purposes IMHO. I wouldn't say this 397 Studios should put it in a sort of top of the list, but it's just me.
I think that with experience, track builders will learn how to translate the subtleties of a real track even without a laser scan, but maybe just learning examining few example. When you build a 3D model from scratch, it's hard to think about the object you create like things influenced by the surrounding environment. Buildings in real life are rarely square, just like a tarmac is never flat. I think with time it will be natural to think at the road mesh like an organic thing. So I would stop worrying about that and focus on core features.
Yes, and its the best one. It gives data to make the road surface as it should be.
Still some laser scanned tracks like AC Silverstone are quite poor in my view, the trackside buildings for example are very average and low-poly and the road doesn't seem that detailed either.
I think the level ISI established with Indianapolis and Atlanta is good enough, they seems more accurate than many AC tracks. The important thing IMO is to provide us with more licensed tracks that are surveyed, ISI has only released two new licensed tracks in the last few years. The 3PA ovals, while not bad, are nowhere near this quality.
I think scanning should focus on the track-surface, unlike it is in AC and the rF2 track-detail-system would benefit from that.
Separate names with a comma.