rf2 graphics quality expectations

The cars look horribly disconnected to the track at the moment, particularly in replay mode. Really need to nail that dark shadow look underneath and around the car much farther out and not just when the car is close to the camera.
 
I guess rf2 isn't really a Screenshot software and i'm not intrested in shots, just to catch some things i take some but not to produce a image for the hall of fame or what ever.

But the image in motion while driving is more important to me where colors and lightning should be real as possible.

If this is right balanced i'm happy with it because the car and ffb dynamics are allready the best out there.

Please ISI don't loose motivation and try the best to get the performance and graphics as best as possible. Otherwise i see many people moving to a diff plattform.

I'm sure time will change things to the better but somewhat faster was not bad.

Thx for your efforth.
 
graphics and performance wont change... from beta till now how much time is gone?? dont remember... too much and things aint change much... so this is the engine and we have to live with it or move somewhere else...
i donk care about graphic but at this stage i think that the gap in performance between rf1 and rf2 its not acceptable. rf2 graphic its just little better nothing else...

isi if you want that people stay with this... invent something!!
 
this is a never ending story. Yesterday after changing one setting in the nvdia panel I was really surprised it was like I had a new sim installed.
There is a setting in the nvidia control panel where you can allow nvidia take control to the colour management. After turning on this feature and a little bit tweaking with the sliders for contrast brightness gamma and I forgot the last one but it was something with digital ... anything :P all my rF2 stuff looks much much better.
I've spend several hours in tweaking and optimizing and in rF2 you can tweak and optimize really much.
Of course sometimes I fail and the work of hours was not worth the result but at the moment I'm very happy with rF2.
I've a fantastic ffb with my CSR-E and with my gfx settings and the nvidia colour management I get between 40 and 60 fps with tripple Screen and 5880 x 1080 with hdr and it looks really nice now.(gtx670 4GB)
For nvidia owners try this http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/12633-4x-Better-Graphics-and-way-more-FPS-Guide


Gesendet von meinem iPad mit Tapatalk HD
 
Tim Wheatley said:
I suggest downloading Build 49, some content from the time we've since updated, and actually taking a look.
Click to expand...

Here is a pic from January 18th 2012. Not to bad. Sometimes I have the feeling you started gfx wise from scratch in march 2012.



Here is a pic from build 240. Finally a nice specular reflection on the guard rail and a working normal map on the concrete.

 
C3PO said:
The cars look horribly disconnected to the track at the moment, particularly in replay mode. Really need to nail that dark shadow look underneath and around the car much farther out and not just when the car is close to the camera.
Click to expand...

Yes, car shadows (or lack of them) are a real immersion killer.
 
osella said:
RBR is simply the only actual rally sim ever released, but I don't find it has any good ffb compared to rf2 or rf1 with realfeel.
Click to expand...

How does a actual rally "sim" have a fixed rear axle. ?
Jumps were arcade style because of this, , I guess that did not bother people as much as me.
Gee even Dirt2 feels more realistic landing back to earth then RBR ever did.

All Rally titles have been semi sim at the best for mine.

rF big jumps were a tad too light and bouncy for offroad.
I think I will see the same problem with rF2.
 
C3PO said:
The cars look horribly disconnected to the track at the moment, particularly in replay mode. Really need to nail that dark shadow look underneath and around the car much farther out and not just when the car is close to the camera.
Click to expand...
totally agree!!!
 
The sense isn't present in the gmotor2.5 updating - return on gmotor2.0. Gmotor2.5 at all doesn't justify the potential but only loads system requirements more.
 
DmitryRUS said:
The sense isn't present in the gmotor2.5 updating - return on gmotor2.0. Gmotor2.5 at all doesn't justify the potential but only loads system requirements more.
Click to expand...

Isn't most of the reason that rFactor 2 seems to take so many system resources to run the new physics engine?
 
Hi

In my opinion the graphic quality we all want to rf2 cleary have it . The problem is, in the poor performance of gmotor, clearly not able to move all the parameters in maximum value, in the modern PC.

We see performance problems on large computers equipped with the latest graphics cards. Already discussed the severe frame drops especially when using reflections.
The question is. Does gmotor will be able to improve on the aspect of optimizing the frame rate?.Or do we have to wait a few years until we have more powerful computers that improve the performance of gmotor?.This last option would not be good.

Best regards
 
7xu5 said:
Does gmotor will be able to improve on the aspect of optimizing the frame rate?.Or do we have to wait a few years until we have more powerful computers that improve the performance of gmotor?.This last option would not be good.
Click to expand...

I also want to know
 
gMotor is pretty old. ISI is stretching it's abilities to get better performance, but moving up one level with performance would likely require something more radical than optimizing engine.

The way content is designed is a huge performance factor and unfortunately ISI is using pretty low-level tools for content creation. I think many small companies cannot afford to put time ( and money ) into creating advanced tools. That's why usually you only see big players do it.
 
K Szczech said:
The way content is designed is a huge performance factor and unfortunately ISI is using pretty low-level tools for content creation. I think many small companies cannot afford to put time ( and money ) into creating advanced tools. That's why usually you only see big players do it.
Click to expand...

What tools do you mean, laser scanning?
 
No, I'm talking about companies like Id Software, Crytek or Epic Games, who provide their engines with a set of custom tools.

A lot of performance optimizations can be offered by such tools - things you cannot do on the fly while rendering or loading a level.

A good example is qvis tool from Quake. It ran for hours processing single map, but when it finished, game engine could use that calculated information to render level with maximum efficiency. Qvis was even capable of removing polygons that would never be seen from where player could go.
It's a bit different nowadays and more so with outdoor sceneries, but for each situation you can always find the most efficient way to organize your geometry and materials.

An artist usually wants to keep his geometry and materials organized in a way that is easy for editing. engine needs content organized in a way that's efficient for rendering. So straight 1:1 export from 3D Studio is not always a good idea.


But like I said - creating tools is a lot of extra work. I'm working on a terrain editor recently and the amount of work is just huge. You could compare it to creating entire rendering engine of a game. I'm not giving up, because in the end I know it will be worth it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
K Szczech said:
No, I'm talking about companies like Id Software, Crytek or Epic Games, who provide their engines with a set of custom tools.

A lot of performance optimizations can be offered by such tools - things you cannot do on the fly while rendering or loading a level.

A good example is qvis tool from Quake. It ran for hours processing single map, but when it finished, game engine could use that calculated information to render level with maximum efficiency. Qvis was even capable of removing polygons that would never be seen from where player could go.
It's a bit different nowadays and more so with outdoor sceneries, but for each situation you can always find the most efficient way to organize your geometry and materials.

An artist usually wants to keep his geometry and materials organized in a way that is easy for editing. engine needs content organized in a way that's efficient for rendering. So straight 1:1 export from 3D Studio is not always a good idea.


But like I said - creating tools is a lot of extra work. I'm working on a terrain editor recently and the amount of work is just huge. You could compare it to creating entire rendering engine of a game. I'm not giving up, because in the end I know it will be worth it.
Click to expand...

christ yeah tell me about it, left the thing overnight many times to build a map only to find an annoying bug the next morning and have to recompile all over again :D

Totally agree with what you mean about the tools, it's something that's severly lacking compared to FPS games where as you say those tools are widely made by the big names and handed out to whomever licenses their engine. Spent countless hours in all the Quake editors and UnrealEd..which when released was a simply terrific tool :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top