Rain Improvements

Discussion in 'Wish Lists' started by DrivingFast, Sep 15, 2018.

Tags:
  1. stonec

    stonec Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Regarding post FX and FPS, I made the following cockpit comparisons. I think the main thing you get from higher post FX is better DoF, but DoF is not active in cockpit to begin with.

    postFX medium:

    rFactor2 2018-09-16 14-04-41-23.jpg

    postFX high:

    rFactor2 2018-09-16 14-12-08-22.jpg

    postFX ultra:

    rFactor2 2018-09-16 14-15-09-27.jpg
     
  2. Will Mazeo

    Will Mazeo Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    Yep, this and shadows you only need on full when you make videos/screen shots imo
     
  3. DrivingFast

    DrivingFast Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    1,083
    I see the difference in the cockpit, when there are lights or a sunset.

    In addition, to my configuration it changes almost nothing in terms of FPS (FPS).

    I also see a real difference for the shadows.

    The thing is that we quickly get used to "luxury", simply.

    The only thing I'm making concessions on is the number of visible AIs.
    When it's not necessary I use a grid of 30 instead of 61, which also saves FPS.

    We get used to luxury !
    But I agree, the graphic quality is far from being the most important in simulation, it is only an additional way to increase the pleasure !

    But I also see these flaws because I'm only 74 cm from a screen of 132 cm (52 ") (FOV 47).
    With a smaller screen, I would see less flaws !

    But I agree with the fact that in simulation the performances are much more important than the graphic quality but the vast majority of the time I am at 60 FPS stable, sebring 12h/61 AI/rain/sunrise and night are circumstances infrequent !!

    Sorry for the out subject guys.
     
  4. hitm4k3r

    hitm4k3r Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    I don't think that you need to apologize for anything - people have a different perception. What I am thinking right now though, is that you contradict yourself a bit when you say that your system is up to run the game maxed out, when it is clearly not able to keep it at your desired framerate (60 fps propably). I think, running the game with medium/high PP, or overall high settings still gives good image quality while offering you stable framerates. I know, 5-7% doesn't sound much, but if you gain a few FPS here and there by fine tuning your settings, you are propably good to go with your system. I am not trying to tell you what do, but just what you might need to take into consideration. I mean, we propably all would like to run the sim maxed out in all circumstances, but it is certainly looking sharp while still maintaining solid FPS. Sebring with 60 AI at night in the rain is propably as heavy as it gets in sim racing currently. :D
     
    DrivingFast likes this.
  5. AMillward

    AMillward Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    1,837
    Medium PP and high shadows is all you need. It doesn't do much beyond that.
     
    mesfigas likes this.
  6. mesfigas

    mesfigas Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    830
    Shadows > PP
     
    Louis likes this.
  7. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Because rF2 can simualte multiple dynamic drying lines, I think rF2 should be capable to simulate alternative wet racing lines due to vicous hydroplaning on smooth surfaces, such as rubbered or polished tarmac. Perhaps could do it by having some additional "master line" coded to highlight low grip lines, viscous hydroplaning unlike dynamic hydroplaning can be basically low grip, while dynamic hydroplaning has to deal with removal of the water from under contact patch, viscous hydroplaning is at molecular level when surface is too smooth to supply tire features for mechanical keying of rubber, and adhession can't occur as well, then in some cases it is basically like an ice. Also better dynamic hydroplaning simulation of puddles which are notably bigger than most of the rest. And like OP said speed doesn't seem to be a big factor on wet surface But perhaps it is few steps too far, rF2 is super ambitious project anyway.

    Also better tire sound effects would be great.
     
    Andregee likes this.
  8. ADSTA

    ADSTA Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,013
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    I somehow must have missed this thread first time around.
    With those pictures, these 50 year old eyes see no difference except positional changes eg shadows, flag marshal etc
    Is that what I should see?
    If not hopefully will my eye test and, most likely, new glasses in December will change that. o_O
     
  9. Paulfield

    Paulfield Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    242
    I just see the fps drop 127, 122,105
     
  10. ADSTA

    ADSTA Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,013
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Yeh, but you're old too! :p
    I want young eyes to say there is next to no difference. :D
    @stonec is that Fraps fps display?
     
  11. Akela_DE

    Akela_DE Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2018
    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    268
    yes, thats fraps and there is no difference and i have new glasses! and i also want better/very much better rain effects
     
    ADSTA likes this.
  12. Will Mazeo

    Will Mazeo Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    1,578
    these effects are mostly visible in tv cameras. From cockpit I think only the headlights from other cars in the mirror (not the virtual one) and rpm leds would get a "better" shine but this effect (leds) does not work on most cars, not even sure if makes a difference in the DLC cars.
    From outside cameras you basically get DoF and better headlights, what is a bit stupid imo, the headlight shine on default content is heavily dependent on PP setting, so basically you need it on ultra to get a effect that you'll get on lowest settings in other games (and sometimes they'll look better in other games)
    Idk these PP effects in rf2 are a bit of a mess imo
     
  13. ADSTA

    ADSTA Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2011
    Messages:
    2,013
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    I've never bothered with PP after initial try.
    Running triple monitors my GPU power has better things to work on or at least try to cough annoying shadow lod (or whatever it is) a few car lengths ahead cough.
     
    Emery and Filip like this.
  14. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    It can already produce grip loss on smooth surfaces, which means a track maker needs to make the 'normal' racing line smoother (TDF parameters, Roughness I think?). Then those smooth surfaces do get more slippery when wet. From discussions years back I think it was made clear that actually this is the main driver behind 'wet driving lines', moreso than rubber, in real life.

    But rubber too should add to the effect, something I think I wishlisted here back in 2015 or so. One more parameter, same data as already available, easy early 'fix'. Never happened.

    Agree with @DrivingFast about drops vs haze, in real life you rarely see drops but everything turns grey as rain increases. That's how you know it's raining. In rF2 at the moment it doesn't happen enough, yet in its early days this effect was actually too extreme. Another fix waiting.
     
  15. ECAR_Tracks

    ECAR_Tracks Registered

    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    465
    The OT forgot to mention the bizarre AI behaviour and inconsistencies on their speed across different tracks and same weather. Old problem, never solved.
     
  16. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    If it is true, then why there aren't any track doing that ? Also smooth surface and rubbered tarmac is +/- physically the same thing. Except that, afaik, rubber can be washed out somehow.

    To me it is clear that rFactor should have to step up it's rain simulation if it wants to be ahead other simulations in it. I really enjoy how rain works, I like how dry-wet-dry progression works, and rain physics at basic level. But there is no real dynamic hydroplanning, there is no viscous hydroplanning (in fact no sim has it yet, but ACC should have it).

    I don't know how many of you guys are interested in physics of rain, since most of this thread seems to go about graphics and performance (I also would wish some stuff about sound).. but whatever here are few links about wet surfaces physics, to me it is very interesting:





    https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lis...ircraft-hydroplaning-and-how-to-prevent-them/

    It is mostly from aircraft field, but it is not surprising, scientifically aircrafts are always many steps ahead of automobile industry.
     
  17. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    Because it's not that easy to do. A track maker would have to define a path (spline?) around the track which is the normal racing line, then split up the racing surface into multiple materials where the polys on that racing line have materials that are smoother, then a bit further away they're more rough, and you really want a few steps so it's not a sudden jump from smooth to very rough (in track terms), plus you want less difference on the straights and more on the sharp corners. I don't know if that sort of thing could be automated or scripted, I don't have any modelling experience.

    Rubbered tarmac definitely does present a smoother surface and will get more slippery when wet, but unless it's very very extreme the smoother aggregate of a worn surface will still have more effect. For this reason a freshly laid track surface will have less of a 'wet line' in wet conditions than a well used track surface which has had the normal racing line ground down through use.

    They both have an effect, but the physical smoothing of the surface does the majority.
     
  18. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    @Lazza You mean the way like I have done it for AC. I'll be interested to try it in rF2 if my modding will progress well:
    [​IMG]
    I also though that I'll need several steps of different grip. But even with sudden jump of friction from 0.84 to 0.5 it feels like it fades nicely.

    Well it certainly would be much better effect in rF2 and indeed possible, but it is still fake. Perhaps it would be ok for polished smooth tarmac, because it is permanent. But for rubbered tarmac it is wrong because it has to be dynamic.

    I would expect rF2 to be able to do it, because it does simulate dynamic rubbering, it just simply would have to be tied together. The only issue I can see is AI, they would have to switch their racing line as well, so simply dynamic rubbering in the wet, and then dynamic AI line in the wet, I believe it would be complex.
     
  19. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,345
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    @mantasisg Don't get me wrong, the rubber needs to get more slippery when wet. In fact:

    https://forum.studio-397.com/index.php?threads/tyres-more-wet-dry-settings.37707/#post-632009

    (note the second half of my post is now redundant; they added, several years later, parameters dealing with wet heat transfer)

    We need both, but tracks need the roughness that you describe doing. Your screenshot probably isn't the best example as longer corners don't tend to invite running off the normal racing line even in the wet (trajectory tends to reward more than outright mechanical grip), but the concept is right. On a tighter corner with a standard inside racing line, the outside would be white representing a rougher surface, meaning in the wet - even without any rubber involved - it will give more grip. The 'karting' wet line. Add some rubber (from dry laps, and something rF2 we know does) and the outside rewards you even more. And it needs to be fair reward, because it's obviously the 'wrong' line geometrically so there has to be plenty of extra grip out there to reward you in the wet. But it's realistic, so let's do it... :)
     
    mantasisg likes this.
  20. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,926
    Likes Received:
    3,876
    Oh I see you, you were on the subject since long time ago :)

    I agree that in faster longer corners it is less rewarding to sacrifice line for grip than in slow corners. It really works like that somehow, though it depends on cars, some cars which has very much grip should be able to grip up after leaving slippery patch, as well as having more grip in general helps... But I can asure you that in this particular example I gave here if with some particular cars you'll be brave enough to go to far outside, then you'll win a second or two. But it is so dynamic, you'll never have the same track in wet I suppose.

    I was using very simple logic assigning those zones. Basic idea is that where tires are loaded the most, there will be most rubber and least grip in wet. Apart from obvious places around curves, I also assigned grid. Because lots of tirespin in start, especially if multiple races happens in a day, or few days in case of Goodwood. Then there will also be compression zones, if there will be strong compression zones, then there will a lot of rubber imprinted or/and very likely a polished smoother tarmac.

    To find out friction levels I simply guestimated grip levels till it was really paying off going off the optimum lines. I found values betwenn 0.65-0.45 to be something about right, and normal "rough", not too smooth, not rubbered wet surface about 0.85, that would be whole lot more funky with water depth calculation and dynamic hydroplaning.
     

Share This Page