RF2 Physics of Dreams!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Thor, Aug 4, 2013.

  1. Thor

    Thor Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    RF2 Physics of Dreams! I refer only to damage!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 4, 2013
  2. o0thx11380o

    o0thx11380o Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    2
    Having the damage physics of this in rf2 would be great but i will stick with rf2's driving physics
     
  3. Thor

    Thor Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2012
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, Yes! I refer only to damage! : O
     
  4. o0thx11380o

    o0thx11380o Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    2
  5. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    I remember like a year or more ago ISI mentioning the new damage physics/engine/model hasn't been implemented yet, haven't heard anything since, hmmmmm.

    Perhaps optimization/performance problems caused then to scrap it or have to completely re-do it? Just takin a guess, hmmmm....
     
  6. Johannes Rojola

    Johannes Rojola Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,038
    Likes Received:
    38
    We can only guess, but it definitely wont be soft body type of damage model like in BeamNG. I am wishing similar what we had in Carmageddon 2, one of the best vehicular damage models :)
     
  7. François Bessard

    François Bessard Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Omg its so realist !!!! include that on a simulation and you win the jackpot :)
     
  8. raekwon

    raekwon Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    omg!!! very nice!!
     
  9. Galaga

    Galaga Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,292
    Likes Received:
    2
    Downloading now...

    Edit - VERY impressive crash physics and possibly fun also if they decide to add wheel/ffb support and online multiplayer.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 4, 2013
  10. Bart S

    Bart S Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    850
    Likes Received:
    99
    Should I or shouldnt I, I must admit it has me intreaged, this could possibly be the future of driving sim.
    And they got occulus, think i will wait a few month not much time to play yet.
     
  11. DrR1pper

    DrR1pper Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,294
    Likes Received:
    35
    Just tried the demo...it's quite fun to see the realistic damages....the kind of fun i had when i was playing gta4. But that's about the extent of it's enjoyment factor. Not completely sure how relevant it would be to the enjoyment i get out of rf2 tbh. It's like when i watched the BeamNG DRIVE video and it made me go "wow...that looks cool, i want to play it". Then you come to the playing part and the fun soon dwindles as the reality hits you that their slow-mo demolition video is way more cool than the actual act of making the car crash yourself in real-time....and all for what?
     
  12. TiTaN

    TiTaN Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    3
    I would be happy if rFactor 2 shows up some damage model soon. but this would be a dream of a simulator like rFactor. A very big dream. I'm just gonna buy this only for watching this video to support them. Oh I did this for rFactor 2 too : P
     
  13. hexagramme

    hexagramme Registered

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    4,241
    Likes Received:
    194
    I do love a good damage model, no doubt. Just downloaded BeamNG alpha and am about to check it out.
     
  14. sg333

    sg333 Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    These physics only apply to bad drivers.

    ;)
     
  15. DrR1pper

    DrR1pper Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,294
    Likes Received:
    35
    The cpu load is really quite high running this demo, also using all 4 cores. I don't think there would be enough cpu resources available after all the intensive physics processing of the realistic tyre modelling that rf2 employs.

    I would much rather have realistic car physics over unrealistic car physics with realistic damage physics (i.e. something like what p-cars employs).

    This is not to say i don't appreciate realistic damage modelling....but you have to be realistic about what hardware technologies are capable of and then set your expectations accordingly. What is more important in a racing simulator? Car physics or visual damage physics? If you can have both, great, then have both. But if you can't....prioritise and compromise.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 4, 2013
  16. Spinelli

    Spinelli Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,290
    Likes Received:
    31
    Sadly this is exactly how I feel about Project Cars, even still as of the very recent builds. Yes, I know, off topic, but your statement really reminded me about those exact same feelings I get when I keep trying Project Cars. You almost try to force yourself to like it, you try to convince yourself of how great the physics are, you try to wipe out RFactor 1 & 2, Game Stock Car, IRacing (enter sim of choice here) out of your memory to forget about their greatness, because you are just trying to force yourself to like the game all just because of the visuals you're looking at.

    Like you said, then after a few minutes of playing the fun dwindles as graphics get old fast, they only go so far (and not far at all) in providing the experience, the fun, the epic moments, the concentration, the focus, the talent, the technique and skill ESPECIALLY in something so deep, visceral and physical (relative to other video games) as sim-racing where there is sooo much more going on then just click a keyboard button and slide a mouse.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 5, 2013
  17. DmitryRUS

    DmitryRUS Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    433
    Likes Received:
    46
    It does not really make a physical engine rF. The huge difference in the physical principle. BeamNG this kinetic model of each object separately. In rF Shimma need to consider the inertia of each object. A large number of these objects rF engine does not stand up. Since a lot of resources spent on a miscalculation of one object, the machine itself. Even if the bots can not take physics player for bots to ask your physics.
    If you want something like that in rF, the need to completely remodel the physical core of the rF . rF is a general simulation of what might happen, without going into detail.
     
  18. Alesi

    Alesi Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    7
     
  19. speed1

    speed1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matter of time or secrets ? Why the last bit of tires and physics are still out of the sim or not implemented. Competitors could read out and learn or get an idea about how it could be ? What is the reason to keep fundamental things out of a simulator in dev for many years but still not complete ? Just curiousity.
     
  20. TJones

    TJones Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,053
    Likes Received:
    232
    This my friend can only be answered by the dev-team itself i suppose.
    I bet we all would be happy to hear some news about the actual state of development, and future expectations.
     

Share This Page