rFactor 2 WIP Drying line video time lapse

JorgeANeto said:
I think if the reflections on track was more "curved" or "twisted" (I don't know the English word for it) the visual would be more convincent. Watter puddles don't reflect the objects as a glass mirror, they deform the images.
Click to expand...
Yes and no - water is water. As long as there is no wind and no raindrops it has a perfectly flat surface and therefore perfecly sharp and straight reflections.

Only when water layer is very thin it will stick to surface rather than fill holes, and then you start to get deformed reflection up to the point where it gets very blurry. In this case we have just a wet road rather than water on road.


Back on the topic of wet road effect. Someone mentioned GP4 and I think one thing is worth pointing out. No matter how realistic (or not) wet road will look like - the most important thing is for the driver to be able to "read" it's surface with his eyes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
K Szczech said:
No matter how realistic (or not) wet road will look like - the most important thing is for the driver to be able to "read" it's surface with his eyes.
Click to expand...
This is ok :)
I think only must reduce reflections.... when I am on board I will not see a car above and one below in front of me :P
 
K Szczech said:
Yes and no - water is water. As long as there is no wind and no raindrops it has a perfectly flat surface and therefore perfecly sharp and straight reflections.
Click to expand...

Yup. I would also add that rain does actually fall straight down naturally. Wind direction can change it, but horizontal rain is actually not that common. :)
 
Tim Wheatley said:
Yup. In this day and age the average PC is very capable of both physics AND graphics. That thought is a carry over from the Pentium I or perhaps Pentium II days I think.
Click to expand...

I am sure its not a myth Tim. I would be so for average gfx , but when we talk next gen, i am sure the CPU would have its work. I guess it all depends on what one calls high end. If you push the GFX to far , the botleneck will be the CPU, not the GPU. And how do we define a threshold for the physics. I would think a compomise would be the best, but then again. boundaries exist to be broken ;-) keep up the good work.
 
I don't think it was a myth, but I do think it is these days. You have many games written and only utilizing one CPU, for example. That could make the CPU a bottleneck, absolutely, but not if you use the hardware properly.
 
WiX said:
I am sure its not a myth Tim. I would be so for average gfx , but when we talk next gen, i am sure the CPU would have its work. I guess it all depends on what one calls high end. If you push the GFX to far , the botleneck will be the CPU, not the GPU. And how do we define a threshold for the physics. I would think a compomise would be the best, but then again. boundaries exist to be broken ;-) keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

I'm no computer expert but from what I understand gaming developers are taking advantage of multi core processors so one processor or perhaps two can be dedicated strictly for physics calculations. Of course it's quite possible I have no idea what I'm talking about and am talking out of my arse.
 
CdnRacer said:
Of course it's quite possible I have no idea what I'm talking about and am talking out of my arse.
Click to expand...

That is the beauty of life. We can be confident in the fact we may not know...but we try. =) I just let others worry about that and then hope my computer can do the job hah.
 
WiX said:
If you push the GFX to far , the botleneck will be the CPU, not the GPU.
Click to expand...
No, if you push GFX too far, the bottleneck will be GPU memory speed.
That's also why console games run so smooth - they're in low resolution comparing to PC standards and therefore have a lot less pixels to render. Another reason is that console GPU's don't have much memory, so textures are smaller and that too saves a lot of memory bandwidth.

Actually, Shader Model 4.0 GPU's are capable of rendering large portions of scene without the help of CPU.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim Wheatley said:
I don't think it was a myth, but I do think it is these days. You have many games written and only utilizing one CPU, for example. That could make the CPU a bottleneck, absolutely, but not if you use the hardware properly.
Click to expand...

I really hope you guys push my Sandy Bridge. It could use a workout.
 
K Szczech said:
Yes and no - water is water. As long as there is no wind and no raindrops it has a perfectly flat surface and therefore perfecly sharp and straight reflections.
Click to expand...

Of course, but unfortunately, those conditions are only obtainable in a Laboratory. What you have mostly in a track surface are wind, raindrops and small irregularities due tarmac porosity.
Look at Codemasters F1-2010 puddles to get my point. That game is horrible, but the visual effects are very clever.


Tim Wheatley said:
Yup. I would also add that rain does actually fall straight down naturally. Wind direction can change it, but horizontal rain is actually not that common. :)
Click to expand...

Same above. Please notice that I’m not moaning. I’m seeing great evolutions from RF1 and surely it would be my favourite racing title based in what I’ve saw so far.

Keep going!
 
JorgeANeto said:
Of course, but unfortunately, those conditions are only obtainable in a Laboratory. What you have mostly in a track surface are wind, raindrops and small irregularities due tarmac porosity.
Click to expand...
You can often see a lake with perfectly flat water surface - all it takes is windless weather - so it's not just in laboratory.
What I'm saying is that whenever reflection is distorted - it must be for a reason, not "just because". So water reflection gets distorted / blurry because either raindrops, wind or car passing by. But in this movie, after rain stops pouring, we have neither of these, so at this point reflection should be sharp as it is.

As for tarmac porosity - it cannoct affect water surface if water layer is thick enough. Water will simply fill all the gaps and remain flat at surface. It can only occur when water layer is very thin - at this point water stickness will play it's part.

As for Codemasters - their water puddles can be seen all over the track, even in Eau Rogue at Spa, which is impossible in reality :)
 
Hello
Well first I think it is awesome and realize it is not final but if it was I think I could live with it and be very happy.

So to all at ISI awesome and thank you
As someone said you are making it harder and harder to wait for this.

Ruben M.
 
First I want to congratulate ISI for the great video you made. It's allmost perfect, if you keep in mind some of my previous speekers suggestions, to lower the degree of reflection at full wet conditions, would be great.

I don't want go go to far in the optics but I think most peaple do not know what they are talking about. I'm afraid of the smattering of some guys here who commenting this video.

You'll never get total reflection if the light coming from a optical less dense medium (air) strikes into an optically dense medium (water). Thus always most part of light gets lost, due to diffuse reflections on phase water-tarmac and total backreflection on phase water-air.


K Szczech said:
As for tarmac porosity - it cannoct affect water surface if water layer is thick enough. Water will simply fill all the gaps and remain flat at surface. It can only occur when water layer is very thin - at this point water stickness will play it's part.
Click to expand...

I can confirm, if water layer is thick enough, there should appear a smooth reflection image,
but in most cases the water layer isn't thick enough. So the wettabillity of tarmac (you call it water stickness) plays a role, this effect causes a diffuse reflection image.

So ISI please make the reflection more diffuse, and then we'll be happy with what we get. Keep up your exellent work.

best regards Norbert
 
First I want to congratulate ISI for the great video you made. It's allmost perfect, if you keep in mind some of my previous speekers suggestions, to lower the degree of reflection at full wet conditions, would be great.

I don't want go go to far in the optics but I think most peaple do not know what they are talking about. But I'm afraid of the smattering of some guys here who commenting this video.

You'll never get total reflection if the light coming from a optical less dense medium (air) strikes into an optically dense medium (water). Thus always most part of light gets lost, due to diffuse reflections on phase water-tarmac and total backreflection on phase water-air.


K Szczech said:
As for tarmac porosity - it cannoct affect water surface if water layer is thick enough. Water will simply fill all the gaps and remain flat at surface. It can only occur when water layer is very thin - at this point water stickness will play it's part.
Click to expand...

I can confirm, if water layer is thick enough, there should appear a smooth reflection image,
but in most cases the water layer isn't thick enough. So the wettabillity of tarmac (you call it water stickness) plays a role, this effect causes a diffuse reflection image.

So ISI please make the reflection more diffuse, and then we'll be happy with what we get.

best regards Norbert
 
K Szczech said:
You can often see a lake with perfectly flat water surface - all it takes is windless weather - so it's not just in laboratory.
What I'm saying is that whenever reflection is distorted - it must be for a reason, not "just because". So water reflection gets distorted / blurry because either raindrops, wind or car passing by. But in this movie, after rain stops pouring, we have neither of these, so at this point reflection should be sharp as it is.

As for tarmac porosity - it cannoct affect water surface if water layer is thick enough. Water will simply fill all the gaps and remain flat at surface. It can only occur when water layer is very thin - at this point water stickness will play it's part.

As for Codemasters - their water puddles can be seen all over the track, even in Eau Rogue at Spa, which is impossible in reality :)
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true regarding a racing surface. Most tracks are designed to drain water not create a lake. So with that point, it would take perfectly flat non-porous surface to create reflection of that intensity. Racing surfaces are not perfectly flat, they may be non-porous to an extent(such as concrete) but even then, there would be water flowing, i.e. draining, across the track creating some refraction and therefor not a perfect reflection.

Also, you lake analogy doesn't work because there is likely going to be wind during rain storm and the rain droplet would disrupt the mirror like surface in your lake analogy. And even after the rain has stopped the water will begin to puddle adding irregularities. This also relates your argument that the water being this enough to negate surface variations. Aside from the fact that water droplets would nullify this argument, the water moment over the surface would create enough irregularity to make the reflection much less bright or like said before, begin to puddle creating different levels of reflection.

I think this is what I'm trying to explain: http://drjeffbangkok.squarespace.co....jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1270544978548

I agree with Nor, the reflection is a little too mirror like. Of course, it could just be the location of the camera intensifying the reflection. Regardless, it's still very nice to see this feature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top