rfactor 2 Car models and lighting

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by FONismo, Oct 22, 2012.

  1. 88mphTim

    88mphTim Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    10,725
    Likes Received:
    126
    Yes, sorry. My mood reading your post was tainted by someone elses. Normally I just stop posting after someone made me feel like that, so that's what I'll do now.
     
  2. tjc

    tjc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    331
    I`m sure some here will think I`m just a major fanboy but to quite frank I don`t blame you Tim.
     
  3. FONismo

    FONismo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    54
    No TJ you have got me wrong on tracks and you are correct with the ISI tracks, they do offer a real immersion and atmosphere that IMO no over sim can create right now. What i do not like with the ISI tracks is the blurry texture work in comparison to what Feels manages to achieve with the same engine. Feels also manages to create immersion with his tracks aswell but the texture work is miles ahead of the ISI tracks.

    It should be said that i say what i say because i care so much about rF2. Just look what is possible with textures with both Croft and Putman, why is this not being done with the ISI tracks if it's possible within the engine? Everyone should know how much i love rF2, i put video after video out for this sim. I just want it to succeed but just feel it's not being pushed as much as it could be even at this stage. Again look at Feels tracks.

    The cockpits while extremely immersive just feel so flat with the lack of decent textures. The GTR and 370Z are not much better texture and material wise than GTR Evolution as of now. I have always jumped on Maxy in the past for digging about graphics, but that was a long time ago, i was expecting much better models and textures by now. It was too early back when Maxy was digging to agree with him.

    But this 49 shot from iRacing is a wake up call for me and what is really possible. Problem is iRacing for me doesn't cut it with physics and frankly it bores me to death but still man, the model looks sensational.
     
  4. MarcG

    MarcG Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    6,715
    Likes Received:
    2,041
    I think with ISI they do need to wake up and and notice (as if they hav'nt already!) of the upcoming competition and current games available, with rF1 they stole the floor and sat on top of the pile and rightly so - but now they need to step up a gear themselves, I just dont think the extras they have in place (Weather, RealRoad) will be enough for a lot of people.
    Especially as they are licensing and therefore releasing many more mods of their own than they did with rF1, there must be some pressure there to release high quality content that will keep people coming back to RF2 and not swaying to <insert other game here>!

    I'm personally not worried about the older RF2 cars but kinda expect the future crop to be of a similar high quality to other games, but as Johannes Rojola put it so brilliantly, the Car needs to fit the Environment....and in that iRacing pic it simply does'nt look right at all IMO. Either way as long as ISI release new cars then I'm happy as I (again personally) dont really go for flashy looking stuff off the bat, I'd rather have the physics and "Fun" value be above that but a small part of me would like to see them meet and even beat the competition in detailed areas.








    I got negative rep off an ISI employee too, although I dont mind because he rocks! The Rep thing needs to go anyway, only serves egos, cant understand why it was introduced in the first place.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. FONismo

    FONismo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    54
    It's the DOF effect that makes the iRacing shots looks out of place, in real time it will look alot different. pCARS is the same, overuse or blur and DOF, makes everything look like a toy. pCARS do it though to mask their aliasing problems
     
  6. feels3

    feels3 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,201
    Likes Received:
    142
    I don't care about stats, rep points etc. But I'm confused when I receive negative rep just because I have my own opinion. My post wasn't negative or rude. I respect ISI's work.

    But it's already OT . Keep talking guys :)
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. RMachucaA

    RMachucaA Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    2
    I made this comment based on the source files i saw in the GTR. I stand by it. Just take a look at the wheels in motion, they are uv'd in a way where they texture is not perfectly setup in the center, so it goes up and down up and down while the wheels are rotating. I would hesitate to say that it was done by a pro (which is why i assumed the car is from a modder, in which case its not a big deal). Im not here to point these things out, as im sure they've noticed themselves. The whole point of this convo is to let them know that they need to balance their efforts into having equal quality content in their release, ie: cars look as good as the tracks and mesh together in visual fidelity.

    PS: everyone screaming at higher res textures, that does NOT fix the problem. Again judging by the GTR, there is so much wasted texture space its crazy, if all of the textures would be used to their max and the car uv'd properly, you could get almost double (guesstimating since i havent looked at every single part) the pixel count per part easy with the same sized textures its using now.


    @ Tim: Do you see what im talking about? My observations are not unwarranted flaming towards RF2. If we didnt care about Rf we would not be here posting these observations.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2012
  8. FONismo

    FONismo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    54
    I don't think anyone is saying textures will fix it, or have i missed this from somone? I'm saying better models all round are needed. Shaders will off course help but the models need to be of a better standard full stop.

    What i'm saying is better and much much higher res cockpit textures in the short term could sweeten things for me at least. And again, when i see Croft and Putnam and what is possible i am simply asking why is this not being done to the ISI tracks?
     
  9. tjc

    tjc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    331

    Well Nismo if I`ve "missquoted" you I`m sorry mate, I never meant to.

    I know how much you like rf2 as I do myself and I know you like ISI`s tracks too... you have said on several occassions that you think feels3`s tracks are "the benchmark" though so maybe that`s what I was thinking about/reffering to, but your right, I should have made my comments more clear about the fact that you think ISI can do just as good a job tracks wise and that you just wish this was the case is all.

    I`ll word things better in future :)
     
  10. FONismo

    FONismo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    54
    They are the benchmark though without a shadow of doubt. That doesn't mean i feel ISI's tracks are poor. In fact Brianza and Palm both look good, Brianza inpaticular. BUT the difference in texture work is night and day and it just bothers me that the same level of texture work is not being applied to the ISI track as good as they are. I spose the next track from ISI will be interesting to see if things are better as to be fair i am comparing tracks from the past to Feels but still, the difference is big IMO.

    It would be great to hear from one of the track artists on this from ISI and what they feel.
     
  11. tjc

    tjc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    331
    Ok so you thought the car was done by a modder... well I don`t know why as we all know it came from ISI... don`t we?

    You say your "not here to point these things out" but that`s exactly what your post did was point it out and imo it could have been worded in a nicer way. That`s why I said I thought it was rude because it came across like that imo.
     
  12. tjc

    tjc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,844
    Likes Received:
    331
    Yeh I agree and see what your saying... I think ISI`s tracks could be a bit better textures wise but I think this will come along with time Nismo... :)
     
  13. Tolik

    Tolik Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    2
    So tired of this discuision about that rf2 dont look uptodate :eek:

    maybe iam just blind or the rf2 grafixs really just looking nice to me :confused:
     
  14. GTClub_wajdi

    GTClub_wajdi Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    328
    as much I hate iRacing with their overrated physics/ffb I have to say that the graphic of that sim is years ahead of rFactor 2
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    only feels3 tracks can match that level!
     
  15. MarcG

    MarcG Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    6,715
    Likes Received:
    2,041
    For me that comes from a community member simply having the talent and exceeding expectations of the community, its happened before and I remember a First Person Shooter Level Creater named Shane Caudle who created the best looking levels you'd ever see and he was soon snapped up by EPIC Games, his levels outweighed those of the actual software company and he was just like feels3 - a standard fan making levels as a hobby (IIRC).
    What we have with community members creating great looking tracks is they might just look at something differently from what ISI do and put into practice what they see....and sometimes it just simply comes out looking much better than the original content, of course not all the time and sometimes is a lot more rare but it does happen. rF1 another prime example, the first cars for that from ISI were not of great quality but enough to get you through, mod teams soon came along a raised the bar to the point that some of us wanted them to get hired!
     
  16. FONismo

    FONismo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    54
    It's not years ahead graphically at all. rF2 is actually more advanced and capable of much much better than what you see there from iRacing. It's how ISI handle what they have at their disposal which will prove this. Already normal day lighting in rF2 is better at times, the difference there in them shots is the shader and texture work and again the car model. My worry is it's taking a long time for ISI to realise this potential with decent shaders etc.
     
  17. DrR1pper

    DrR1pper Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Likes Received:
    29
    ¬°Ay, caramba!

    It is very visually stunning, despite probably employing less advanced forms of graphical effects (and probs a fair bit of pre baking) but the overall end result (to me at least) is more visually appealing.

    Graphics and Gameplay use to be a no brainer "Graphics wins me over" mentality in the past, then i started to warm up to gameplay and graphics must be as equal as possible for my interest to stay about a year before i bumped into rf2. With rF2 that mentality was challenged further and as much as it pains me to know that iRacing has those gorgeous graphics, the sensations of driving in rF2 has not worn off one tiny bit over the last 6 months, a testament to gameplay first and graphics second. But that doesn't make the act of seeing iRacing2.0 pics any less painful though.

    Can we have a new forum rule? NO POSTING IRACING 2.0, P-CARS OR A-C PICTURES!...please? :D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2012
  18. FONismo

    FONismo Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    54
    Yep your right and if Feels can do then i'm sorry ISI can also do it. And if not why are they not hiring this guy. Go watch the comments on VirtualR and other places. You read the comments on a Feels story and they all comment on how he is showing the potential of the engine. Why not try and match what he is doing or IMO just the hire the guy! He may turn them down, he may not but it's worth a try. There are countless talented guys on this forum that care about this sim that constantly speak sense, K Szczech being the main one that springs to mind. This guy knows his stuff like not alot of people and he seems to want the best for rF2, constantly answering people and giving detailed explanations on everything. Why not approach guys like this and ask for help and direction with things if hiring them is out of the question or they do not wish to be hired.

    These guys could have a dramatic effect on this sim. Again ISI themsleves can possibly do all of this and know all of this already but right now it doesn't feel like it. I'm just frustrated i spose, i just want this sim to succeed as a fan of the rFactor name. Seeing stuff like i have from CTDP today was something that really got to me and it feels like things are going downhill fast.
     
  19. GTFREAK

    GTFREAK Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    5
    I'd like to point out the obvious here and say that rFactor and rFactor 2 were never supposed to be about the cars (or tracks) that came with those Sims.

    Take the originial rFactor for example. Take a look at the cars that came with it. Were they exquisite in detail? Did they have awesome textures? Even for 2005 standards they were decent, but the original rFactor was never supposed to be about the content (cars or tracks) that came with the product. That was the responsibility of the community and ISI knew this. Mods are what drove that Sim to all of it's success over the past seven years.

    I don't understand how so many people could suddenly forget the fact that this Sim was always going to be community driven. Meaning that the community would create the largest portion of content (mods/cars).

    rFactor 2 is the foundation or groundwork with which to build upon. That foundation is extremely important. If you don't get that right, you've got nothing to build upon. That's what is happening here. There is absolutely no point in spending a lot of man hours on things that just don't matter. Yes, it's important to have several series of cars implemented into the core Sim. That's the foundation I'm talking about. But models and artwork can easily be changed. But, if you don't get the foundation (physics/simulation) correct, what's the point of a pretty model? ISI are building that foundation. That's what you (the modding community) are supposed to build upon. You take the core systems and create your own artwork based on that structure. This is what makes the rFactor Sims so popular.

    The core systems are there. Now it's up to us to create the "real" content. What you are seeing right now are basically just placeholders (no offense intended to their respective artists). The original rFactor was exactly the same. It was a foundation. However, many people complained that it did not have enough content that came with it and many people felt that the core Sim just didn't have enough to bring them in. Now, they are doing what they can to alleviate that this time around by giving us more content. It may not be the best looking content out there, but ISI knows that we (the modding community) are just going to create our own content anyway. Why do you think they spent so much time writing tutorials and posting on these forums answering questions? They are even giving you great examples with which to create your own versions. For example, you can now take the physics from the Formula ISI car and tweak it to create your own mod. Same goes for the Nissan GTR, or the CLio, or the Megane. These are foundations.

    I think ISI knows that some very talented people exist in this community and they are going to take these foundations and create some spectacular mods in the not so distant future.

    It's all about the mods, guys! All of a sudden we've forgotten that?
     
    2 people like this.
  20. MaXyM

    MaXyM Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,774
    Likes Received:
    29
    There are a lot of factors which effectively lower quality of rendered scene.
    Of course any one may have own preferences, taste or priorities.
    But if we started to finally talk about gfx, we have to say honestly, that ISI is far away beyond what they might to achieve. I don't know the reasons and don't want to talk about this. So will not judge ISI staff. At the end it really doesn't matter - results do.

    Models - probably models are good enough to be accepted in simulation. Powered by proper shaders and texturing might be ok for common use: racing. Only in case of hires photos, flaws might be vissible. But It is really not right to say models are stunning (yes, I saw such comments). Here is a picture for comparision, how it might/should look:
    [​IMG]

    Texturing - Look at Nissan GTR cockpit. ISI is still using technique unwrapping single texture on whole object. There are cons of this technique:
    - require big texture to provide quality. 4096x4096 is not enough to be comparable to other method I will talk about later
    - because such texture must cover large, complex object, it contains pixels with wide variablity of colours inluding shades (for AO). Because of limitation of DDS format, it causes huge loss of quality by appearing DDS artefacts. Our example (GTR) looks just ugly. I'm really curious if ISI has some quality department, because IMO it is unacceptable to be released nowadays.
    Here are screenshot from current version (open it in real size):
    [​IMG]

    You may notice violet and green stains - DDS artifacts. Also some patterns (carbon) are... put the word on your own.
    Current standards require to made materials using multilayer texturing with: patterns very small, seamless textures (diffuse,normal) multiplied by AO texture and specular one. AO as well as specular may be grayscale, lowres one. So in overall there might be lower memory usage with higher quality effect.



    Shaders - still suffer from bugs. I would like to leave deeper analize for more experienced persons like KSzczech. But it's obvious that reflections are just incorrect. A year ago I moan for lack of fresnel. Then it has been added - but unfortunately other aspects of reflections makes it to be wasted. Even Max exporter has limit which doesn't allow to set up proper specular reflection. There are also other issues like specular texture drives only specular reflection instead of overall one.
    It is impossible to achive realistic looking model with screwed up materials. Shaders plays main role in this.

    Cubemaps - any effect, even if proper one, may be wasted by incorrect env reflection. And this is what happend to rf2. Dynamic cubemaps are not affected by lighting and shadows. In result whole reflection is inconsistent. It has been reported by KSzczech already.
    And if we are talking about cubemaps... there is missing blured ones which are required to achieve realistic semi glossy / matte materials like aluminium, metals, plastics, leather and even rubber (tires).

    All things are just wrote about are available in other titles or even in rfactor1 (KSzczech's shader pack). I'm really curious why ISI skip this part of gfx engine developement. They didn't even have to invent things. Just to copy/reprogram ideas.
    BTW, arguing one of Tim's comment. It is not true that programming of time of day changable scene is harder (I think it is argument against iR). It indeed is if gfx engine is trying to cheat. I mean if programmers do tricks to get result simmilar to what we see in realisty. But once, if idea "how does it work irl" is cached correctly, writing such engine is easier, because is consistent as well as real world. Additionaly, probably it needs less computer power comparing to the first one.

    I hope that there are finally community members who started to see those flaws. Maybe ISI will start to listen us too, to look around, to compare to competition etc. Please get this post as comprehensive report though gfx issues, not as complains.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2012
    3 people like this.

Share This Page