rFactor 2 and graphics engine (not unreal compared to other MG games), why?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by pilAUTO, Jul 14, 2021.

  1. pilAUTO

    pilAUTO Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2020
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    241
    How do you explain that the other MG games, using the physics engine of rFactor 2, use an unreal engine, unlike rFactor 2 ?

    Over the past year, rFactor 2's graphics have started to look really good in some ways, and pretty good overall.

    Nevertheless, I find it curious that rFactor 2 does not follow the same path.

    Why this choice of S397 / MG ????

    Modding compatibility ? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: (This will to make it compatible with old content put rFactor 2 very late in my opinion. Tell me if I'm wrong.)
     
    juanchioooo likes this.
  2. Comante

    Comante Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    918
    Why MG should care to force a very recently bought product (alredy released) to run on the same engine? Can't see none.
     
  3. pilAUTO

    pilAUTO Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2020
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    241
    Even though I find that the graphics engine in rFactor 2 is getting better and better, I think that if you poll all of the simracers, the overwhelming majority will say in my opinion that this is a (new) missed opportunity on the part of S397 not to use a much more modern graphics engine.

    There would probably have been a consistency that games using the rFactor 2 physics engine all used unreal, for the sake of consistency.... and modernity .... and to bring in new customers.

    Missed opportunity ? Maybe (not sure ...).

    ------------

    In fact, maybe it was time to do an rFactor 3 beta, with the entire rFactor 2 base continuing to improve, priorities redefined and the move to an unreal engine.
     
    juanchioooo and B. Gant like this.
  4. Tomislav Leskovic

    Tomislav Leskovic Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    60
    And why you as a user care which engine they use? What's next, complain about a language they've used to develop code?
     
  5. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,391
    Likes Received:
    3,257
    To be honest, wide use of UE has always confused me. Especially that not that many makes truly good use of it.

    For example, Kunos choice to go for UE for ACC, it has always been strange to me. Their original engine is rather smooth and good for sim, they could just kept going on top of it, making it more natural and less fake, adding more features... Unreal engine is probably a lot more fake than Kunos original AC engine. I am sure they could have done more than modders hacked out of it. But they must have had reasons...

    Same goes for rF2. It seems like it can get pretty awesome, why not to put more horsepower on developing it further especially as it could be used for multiple games. I have no idea, but developers obviously just has reasons. Perhaps UE branding helps, maybe it is just that easy to work with it.. but come on, it is just unreal. rF2 graphics engine is probably the most natural and least fake out of all that there are in sim market, although perhaps not the best developed, with many things to wish for, but it is getting pretty smooth and impressive, in my opinion.

    I hope rF2 will keep on all its original parts, and work on them.
     
  6. pilAUTO

    pilAUTO Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2020
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    241
    Where do you see that I complain.

    Debate is interesting and probably legitimate.
     
    juanchioooo likes this.
  7. Tomislav Leskovic

    Tomislav Leskovic Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2019
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    60
    To be honest, I think Comantes answer told you all the right things. Not sure what is left to debate.
     
  8. Alexandr Meshkov

    Alexandr Meshkov Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2017
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    72
    it is not an easy task to change graphic engine. rfactor2 have long history it development started ten years ago. for the years community and developers made big number of different cars and tracks. every time if you want to change something you should take into account backwards compatible of all previous content for the game.
     
    avenger82 likes this.
  9. pilAUTO

    pilAUTO Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2020
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    241
    This is the strong point of the rF2 graphics engine, the natural side.

    On the other hand, to obtain this natural side, you need to use recent circuits.
     
  10. Ernie

    Ernie Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    215
    The rF2 graphics engine has made huge steps the last 2-3 years. Especially with the new PBR support.
    Of course, there's still headroom for visual improvements in rF2. But i see no need for using UE4, because it has some disadvantages as well. Especially VR users can tell you a thing or two about it. e.g. ACC isn't really known for good performance and great image quality in VR.:rolleyes:
     
  11. juanchioooo

    juanchioooo Registered

    Joined:
    May 16, 2016
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    If they change the graphic engine, the physics will go down the water close:(

    it would be a pittance like Automobilista 2 and ACC
     
  12. AlexHeuskat

    AlexHeuskat Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    327
    The Grand Tour with rF2 physics


    NFS Heat physics


    it's the same, the rF2 physics marketing announce is a fail, it will be arcade.
    All I want is rF2, with stock car, and FIXED AI !
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2021
  13. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,391
    Likes Received:
    3,257
    I can't understand what you meant lol It is like blend of few completely random thoughts.
     
    Filip likes this.
  14. AlexHeuskat

    AlexHeuskat Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    327
    the Grand tour game was marketed with rF2 physics engine....and it was like Need For Speed....so any time they market a game with the rF2 physics, I laugh...
     
  15. I_Bellett

    I_Bellett Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    167
  16. AlexHeuskat

    AlexHeuskat Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    327
  17. Rastas

    Rastas Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    1,129
    NFS Shit series used rFactor1 physics,some others game too,is not something new,i can made you a mod whit NSF feeling,nothing hard.
     
    Filip likes this.
  18. R.Noctua

    R.Noctua Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2020
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    202
    Compare UE4 ACC and KartKarft. The former looks disgusting and you have to try really hard to get it to be sharp. Whereas the second looks photorealistic out of the box.

    I would have preferred the RF2 to stay on its engine. The graphics look pretty decent right now.
     
    EricW and juanchioooo like this.
  19. AlexHeuskat

    AlexHeuskat Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    463
    Likes Received:
    327
    the Marketed "Rf2 physics" is just to attract people, and when you play the game, you feel like NFS....don't cry later.
     
  20. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,391
    Likes Received:
    3,257
    @AlexHeuskat And no one has ever been surprised about it. By the way, thats what Todd Wasson had to say:

    "Most of the "arcade" games today have more in depth physics and tire models than Grand Prix Legends had. After having worked with a couple of Need For Speed guys on Grand Tour Game (which uses the rFactor physics engine if you can believe that, I was hired to dumb it down into an arcade game which was very interesting), I can say for certain this is true of the Need For Speed series over the past many years. What made a game "arcade" 20 or 30 years ago was the physics model. Today and for many years already, not so much. Now it's more about the parameterizations of those models and some differences in tire models."


    One of the things sim racers in all their talk about realism just never seem to understand is how much work goes into making a real car handle the way the driver wants it to. There are entire series of chapters in vehicle dynamics books dedicated to exactly that aspect of handling: Controllability. I almost never see this discussed in the sim racing community. In fact, most of the books aren't nearly as much about making cars faster as they are about getting the handling a certain way so the driver is happy and doesn't struggle with control. Fast, but as predictable as possible and easy to drive. The car does what you want it to do. That means a happy driver. A happy driver is a fast driver. Fast drivers win.
    Sim racers should talk less about realism and more about good handling versus bad handling. You can make a real car that spins every time you look at the radio if you want. It's real so it's 100% realistic, but it's terrible handling and nobody wants a car that drives that way. A race car will not drive that way because a race car driver wouldn't tolerate it if it did. If it's unpredictable and doesn't do what the driver wants, it's going to be slow and a miserable experience to drive.
    The driver will bring the car to the garage and say, "This sucks. Every time I breathe on the throttle in the hairpin, it wants to spin, and once it gets a little bit loose, it just loops around without any warning and I have no chance to catch it. This is awful. Please fix it."
    Engineer says, "Ok," and fixes it.
    Driver says, "yeah, I like this better."
    There's no conversation about realism at all, it's just about good versus bad handling. The bad handling version of the race car is just as realistic as the good handling version. There's a big difference though: One sucks and the other doesn't. The real race car doesn't suck.
    If a sim racer has the same complaint about a car, the "engineer" (forum reply) response is this:
    "Well, that's how the real car must drive because this is the most realistic thing ever made and how would you know if you haven't driven the real car and a race driver on TV once said it was pretty realistic and the physics engine does this and the tire model does that and you wouldn't know anyway because you aren't a real driver anyway and your forcefeedback sucks and you need a better wheel and you can't feel the g-forces and your perspective is wrong and your field of view is wrong and I've been driving sims longer than you and you're using a computer desk instead of a racing rig and you need a motion platform and the fear factors isn't there and and..."
    Umm.. No. Stop it. The handling is just awful.
    I had a back and forth with Matt Sentell once about this (Papyrus, he worked on IndyCar Racing II and probably I, although this was while we were trying to help with the offending sim). He essentially said that he often wanted to intentionally give players an absolutely horrible car, one that 100% could be proven was completely wrong in every way just to see what the reaction would be. I remember him saying something like "the hardcore alien types would figure out how to drive it anyway, think it was brilliant, the most realistic car ever put in a sim, and rip on all the ninnies who couldn't drive it because they just didn't have the skills." I'm paraphrasing, but I clearly remember him using the word "ninnies."
    Back to bad handling: When bad handling is found in a sim car, a lot of sim racers seem to say something like "how do you know the real car doesn't drive just like that? Have you ever driven it? HUH?? GOTCHA!!"
    While they might be right on an especially lucky day, they're probably not. Here's how I know it doesn't drive that way even though I've never driven the real car:
    Because no race driver on Earth would tolerate it if it did.
    A real driver would demand the engineers do what they can to fix it. Failing that, the tire companies would give them different tires to help the handling problems. The tire companies have to pay as much attention to this as the chassis people. They're not just throwing any old set of tires off the shelf and saying "good luck with your setup." They're engineered specifically for the cars, and in some cases, the combination of the car together with a specific track. Nascar uses different tires for every track on their circuit that vary tremendously from each other. One of the most important goals is to not kill the drivers.
    The trouble with sim racers is so many of them seem to think that if their sim car is really hard to control, it must be realistic. I think this is an old vestige from the days when us old folks all went from Pole Position type games to stuff that had decent vehicle models like Hard Drivin' and the PC sims that came after it that were running similar physics and tire models. Sure, they were harder to drive than Pole Position, but they were also more realistic in the sense that they did all the weight transfer effects, the tires had slip angles, and all the other things that were completely missing from Pole Position that make it feel like a car. Not a good car, but a car nonetheless.
    So the "harder = more realistic" idea, which was true then, stuck. I've never seen it take a vacation since. If anything, it's gotten even more attention.
    Most of the "arcade" games today have more in depth physics and tire models than Grand Prix Legends had. After having worked with a couple of Need For Speed guys on Grand Tour Game (which uses the rFactor physics engine if you can believe that, I was hired to dumb it down into an arcade game which was very interesting), I can say for certain this is true of the Need For Speed series over the past many years. What made a game "arcade" 20 or 30 years ago was the physics model. Today and for many years already, not so much. Now it's more about the parameterizations of those models and some differences in tire models.
    The trouble is that back in those early PC sim racing days, nobody really knew what the heck they were doing. These were computer game devs at best, not vehicle dynamics experts. Hard Drivin' and Race Drivin' nailed the physics especially well because Doug Milliken himself tuned it (he's listed as "test driver" in the credits because Atari didn't want to tip off competitors as to how they managed to pull off that miracle). It was using one of Milliken's own models from the automotive industry: A classic bicycle model (later expanded to a 4 wheel model for Race Drivin').
    While the PC sims that have come since are more sophisticated by far than Hard Drivin' and Race Drivin', I don't believe the rest of the PC world guys were anywhere close in handling knowledge in those early days, so while it was true that "hard = more realistic" when comparing Grand Prix Legends to Pole Position, they were largely still awful because nobody back then had much of an inkling about how to tune a car as well as the Doug Milliken types could. Remember that the internet wasn't really a very useful thing yet so you were really left figuring it all on your own back in those days. I think my first book on the subject was "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn which I picked up at an auto parts store one day. That book got a lot of things right, but a lot wrong too, especially about tires. Those were the kinds of books we were all looking at back then.
    So realism or no realism, the reality is that most of those early sims still suffered from one thing: Terrible handling at a level no driver would put up with.
    Today people talk about realism to mean "the car drives the same way that the real car does." I think that's the proper way to think about it. That means, however, that if the sim car doesn't drive like the real thing, it's not "realistic." This also means that if the car is simply horrible to drive to the point where a real racing driver would want to take it back to the garage and yell at his engineer or the tire people, while at the same time not having the same urge with his real car, you can be pretty sure that the sim car isn't "realistic." There are substantial differences between the sim car and the real one. That's what I'm seeing loud and clear in Austin's video.
    I've always thought it unwise for sim racers and developers alike to battle drivers on this. I've never understood it, quite frankly, unless it's the driver's first three seconds on a sim of any kind. Sure, there might be a little adjustment period for your brain to toggle the right switch, but once that's past, they are interpreting the vehicle response to their control inputs about the same as they would be doing in reality, something they know better than anyone else. Love him or hate him, Austin's video is a brilliant example showing just how obvious the differences between the real cars and the simulated ones really are, at least in this particular sim's case.
    Less talk about realism and more talk about good versus bad handling. When someone says "the handling sucks," people really need to stop chiming in with "yeah, but that's how the real car is."
    No. It isn't.
     

Share This Page