Hello @Marcel Offermans , @Christopher Elliott . Thank you for understanding that I love the work done by ISI/S397 these last years, that I am personally very grateful for allowing me to have a realistic simulation with a varied content of quality, and that it has not no pleasure in making criticisms. I am a "harcore user" (it seems pathetic to say that) and I want only the good of S397 and the objective improvement of RF2. - I do not understand at all how the most realistic simulation of the market has almost not evolved since the arrival of S397 on all aspects that make up realism (in a broad sense, not just physics. Do not confuse realism and immersion ). - I do not understand how even 1% of the communications (roadmap) concern aspects of realism (in the broad sense). - I do not understand how much more than 99% of the ANNOUNCED work in progress or planned does not concern aspects of realism (in the broad sense) Do you want a concrete example ? Between rain and wet ground, the wet road averages at least 25% of the time spent on the circuits (maybe much more). So the simracer potentially spends a lot of its time on wet roads : what did you spend hundreds of hours on ? On the graphical aspect (immersion), not on the very specific driving on wet road (aquaplanning)............ From my point of view, the priorities on driving in the rain were very badly chosen. BUT THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. So my question is really important, even if you take the time to answer it, you can answer it as accurately as possible please (you do not usually take the time to answer such essential questions). Can you tell us precisely about the aspects of realism (in a broad sense) what is in progress, what is planned and in a very approximate way, on which you have not decided yet ? *Not exhaustive* - Driving on a wet road (aquaplanning) - Physics (in the broad sense) - Your wishes for the future of RF2 regarding : real car data + real track data (laser) - Realroad (in the broad sense) - Offroad - Temperatures/wind etc. - Tires : 7 cars on the ~50 are equipped with new tires. At least 40 cars at least are of very very great quality : I think it should be a priority to equip them quickly.... not DX11. Accurate information would be welcome. - All that I did not think about the aspects of realism (in the broad sense) Do not get me wrong : - I know who I owe this unique and high quality simulation. - I know it's thanks to the ISI/S397 teams, and I'm grateful to all of you. But the main point of this particular simulation is its realism. 1 year and a half has passed, I hope you will take seriously this aspect : because realism it is the DNA of RF2. Thank you.
Firstly, when the new rain effects (like puddles) were released, they acknowledged there's no accompanying physics yet. I'm not sure what else you want them to say, unless you'd like them to commit to a rough deadline people can complain about when they don't make it. Secondly, you're starting to revert to your old posting style.
I I think he is just saying it would be nice that the road map include some aspect about physics development / improvements. However given the absence of mention I would assume nothing is in the works on improving physics outside what has already been discussed in previous roadmaps.
Fact 1 : Information on this crucial topic in roadmaps and other media is minimal or almost non-existent. 2nd fact (or else I did not understand anything about the interest of this specific simulation in the universe of the simulation) : "the DNA of RF2 is actually the overcoming of the codes of the realism on a simulation" (we are d agree on that ??????). From there, after seeing the last 12 roadmap, totally and almost exclusively focused on : the super beautiful mega ultra graphics, the super ergonomic UI, the magnificent damage essential for driving, the super nice rain (but go to 400 km / h on a very wet road for fun, etc etc etc etc ... It is normal to begin to ask questions, provided they are more interested in the simulation aspect that the video game aspect. My request is LEGITIMATE. The goal is not to "burn" them by telling them everything they "hurt" or otherwise. The only purpose is to have information about the realism aspect of the simulation. If you are satisfied with "the graphics are improved blablaba ....": you are very lucky. My request although abrupte is totally legitimate.
They aren’t focusing on that aspect as a main priority due to vast amount of work rf2 needs in every other area imho. Let them get the product working as a whole first,dabadoombar
