rf2 graphics quality expectations

Nazirull Safry Paijo

Nazirull Safry Paijo

Registered
One is to wonder how does the final graphics engine will compete with the likes of iRacing and AC? Many will quick to point out graphics as one of the reason theyre not giving the BETA a go. Will the gold rf2 enough to convince these doubters?

IlEYWWL.jpg

xE4NOVf.jpg

bFJJg02.jpg

RAKp85O.jpg
 
I think rF2 looks pretty darn good, but if I want graphics, I'll play F1 2012 or Dirt.

For me the graphics is an after-thought, I really want the features and realism above all else. Some things in rF2 look awesome- like those screenshots above. but sometimes when I go into the sand traps and see the way the dust particles look.... it looks like the dust trail Road Runner makes when Wile E. Coyote chases him. Sometimes when a track rubbers in too, the way it happens looks blocky and unnatural. But like I said, the driving is what I am interested in so the graphics- Eh, whatever.

But I have heard from lots of doubters who think rF2 is ugly and won't touch it. You can't make everyone happy (not with computers as they are anyway). One day PCs will be so powerful that neither graphics nor drivability will have to be sacrificed. Right now I think some graphical whizz bangs are being left out of the game because the physics and esp. the tire model are so CPU intensive.
 
I think that rF2 overall graphic is mmm.....ok, but when it is comes to details it is really ugly! for example, the Corvette, if you look at the cockpit, it appears good and fine, but when you look carefully to the dashboard, you will notice a lack of textures and depth!
you don't choose rF2 for the graphics, otherwise no one will buy it! you choose rF2 for the physics,ffb,online,enginesounds..!
 
Nazirull Safry Paijo said:
One is to wonder how does the final graphics engine will compete with the likes of iRacing and AC? Many will quick to point out graphics as one of the reason theyre not giving the BETA a go. Will the gold rf2 enough to convince these doubters?

IlEYWWL.jpg

xE4NOVf.jpg

bFJJg02.jpg

RAKp85O.jpg
Click to expand...

If the game drives amazing then isn't graphics just a bonus? From 1998 or 1999 until about 2007 or so, pro evolution soccer/winning eleven always had worse graphics and less official licensed content than the FIFA soccer games, but the overall physics and gameplay killed FIFA, so most soccer fans that knew about both games would choose pes/we over FIFA, how is this any different? We are PLAYING/DRIVING the sim, not watching it in a movie theatre.
 
And we could get a sound engine connected to engine physics like in Richard burns rally and old (up to v1.03) netkar pro, and we could get the amazing complex environmental sound physics of battlefield, and we could get the awesome online portal/community that iracing has. In the end we will have the most perfect game of all time :).

Unfortunately we have no idea just how much resources the core physics, graphics and overall game engine need, we are not coders or software engineers, and even if we were, we have no access to the core game, physics and graphics engine's deep coding and construction of it, we just have modding tools, so we really have no idea whats going on behind the scenes of the software.

Maybe the graphics engine is still too much based on a very dated (late 90's early 2000s) core foundation (despite updates) which limits what it can do? Or maybe it can do it all but is very in-efficient at doing it because of it's dated foundations? Or maybe the physics/tyre core engine is very very resource heavy and makes it very difficult to have great graphics at the same time without blowing up our computers lol? Or this, or that, etc.

Who knows.

If the answer was simple, then you could get 100 first person shooter games and say to all of them, "why don't you all have the graphics of crysis??!"

If the answer was simple, you could get every first person shooter game out there and say to them all, "why don't you all have the sound engine like battlefield??"

If the answer was simple, you could get every sim out there and say "why don't you all have sounds connected to physics like rbr".

Etc etc etc etc
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My main problem with rF2 right now is the lighting. Any time between sunrise and sunset look awfully bright, washed out, little contrast. However at sunrise or sunset, I find it beautiful on places like Sebring, Mid-Ohio, Croft, Spa, etc.
 
Blue fellow said:
My main problem with rF2 right now is the lighting. Any time between sunrise and sunset look awfully bright, washed out, little contrast. However at sunrise or sunset, I find it beautiful on places like Sebring, Mid-Ohio, Croft, Spa, etc.
Click to expand...
yup...when the sun is straight up, things are abit flat hehe. Putnam also is looking pretty at sunrise/sunset. Poznan is looking osum.
 
What would be nice is a Q&A with ISI (insert title here) people. Among other things, the graphics "issue" would be nice to be addressed and get some clarification, what kind of results are there to be expected and that way we can lay this thing to rest for now.

I do agree that the physics, ffb, realism in all aspects is the most important part in any sim, hence the word simulation (Simulation; the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.)
That being said, isnt the visual aspect of a simulation also to simulate the real world counterpart, more accurately this is accomplished the more realistic the visual aspect of the sim is.
 
Golanv said:
I do agree that the physics, ffb, realism in all aspects is the most important part in any sim, hence the word simulation (Simulation; the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.)
That being said, isnt the visual aspect of a simulation also to simulate the real world counterpart, more accurately this is accomplished the more realistic the visual aspect of the sim is.
Click to expand...

Not really. Your real industrial hardcore simulations do not place a premium on graphics. Most have just enough graphics to get the point of the sim across but you wouldnt walk in them saying "DAMN this looks real" but you'd certainly say "DAMN this is just like doing X in a real Y"
 
Marvin Morgan said:
Not really. Your real industrial hardcore simulations do not place a premium on graphics. Most have just enough graphics to get the point of the sim across but you wouldnt walk in them saying "DAMN this looks real" but you'd certainly say "DAMN this is just like doing X in a real Y"
Click to expand...
Of course they don't focus mainly on graphics. The point of Golanv's was that to achieve as realistic driving experience as possible, the surrounding world must also look as realistic as possible. It's no use to have the perfect physics engine if graphics are on the par with Dwarf Fortress ;) After all graphics influence your driving experience quite a lot even if you don't notice it.

e. And to make myself clear: I don't think rF2 looks like DF. IMO rF2 graphics exceed my needs but I certainly wouldn't complain if they were even better than now!
 
Graphics is at a level nowadays that is good enough I think. More is always better, and it will just improve from here. But it's no concern anymore, I hardly give it a thought. That is unless I play converted tracks and stuff, then you see what we had before. Which is not adequate today.
 
I think the graphics are pretty decent. That said, the quality of the graphics could be better and has (very probably) put off some potential buyers from getting the sim so far.

Maybe when the graphics and the sim are completed and things like rain effects are implemented properly instead of those ghastly long white lines of so called rain, the wider sim world will have better things to say about the image quality.

rfactor2-1285103116-4c991e0c34fb9.jpg


I'm still hoping that ISI are holding back "the graphics hand they are playing" until Assetto Corsa is released and that they have a nice surprise in store for us all.

*am probably dreaming though *
 
Marvin Morgan said:
Not really. Your real industrial hardcore simulations do not place a premium on graphics. Most have just enough graphics to get the point of the sim across but you wouldnt walk in them saying "DAMN this looks real" but you'd certainly say "DAMN this is just like doing X in a real Y"
Click to expand...

We are not talking about industrial simulation, we are talking about commercial sim, a computer game thats genre is simulation.
Standards are set by the industry, and its a choise to follow or not. I want realistic driving feel and content, graphics is secondary to me, but like someone said they are a good bonus.
 
I think we are at a point, especially with PC gaming, where top quality graphics should be expected rather than considered a luxury. Of course gameplay is always the priority and with rFactor 2 it's all about realism and physics, but graphics play an important part in conveying that realism and making a game feel immersive and believable.

I hope rF2 improves graphically as for me it's the game's most noticeable weak point. Eye candy is one way to get the attention of potential customers and the game fails in this regard, whereas pCARS and Assetto Corsa have got people interested because of the way they look. Not saying it's right, but that's how it is.
 
I think the graphics in a modern simulator is a key factor.
In addition to being the first thing you notice, it becomes imperative even while driving.
The better the graphics quality, the better the visual cues (eg when braking the limit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top