@Cosmic, I know you are not sincere (and are also out of your league, no pun) and that would be obvious to anyone who read the post to which you are referring, which I will link here for reference: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.p...v1-01-Released?p=184484&viewfull=1#post184484 To paraphrase for THEIR benefit: - ISI absolutely has the right to decide to what extent (i.e. adding lower circuit detail options) they will go to support mid-range PCs - ISI should either remain completely silent regarding system requirements or be as accurate as possible and consistent regarding them - it is selfish for people who have good performance to discredit or dismiss those who don't and/or urge ISI to ignore optimization I have no idea how you translate this into anyone that has anything nice being greedy but I hope you are just trolling or taking sides with the fortunate which is better than just being blind.
i don't know what to say but here goes sounds like a lot of ppl want all the bells and whistles with rf2 from all the suggestions to do this do that and put this in the game and so on, well you better be prepared to update your pc somewhere to experience this, when it comes to optimization we know ISI is still working on this. so until its done and confirmed by ISI you will have to go with the flow. b4 u ask yes i have a top PC. its not just for rf2 its also so i dont have probs with other sims and games too and yes so i can start to learn modding, yes some of these SIMS, GAMES run better but most of them are fully optimized and have full support from nvidia and ati... NOW FOR THE SUPPORT OR ABUSE............
ISI can do whatever they want. I hope they do as much as they can to support mid-range PCs but I also understand their are opportunity costs associated with this so ISI must decide. And, if my system is inadequate, then I am free to decide whether to upgrade or abandon rF2. It is indeed true that some games have good optimization and some don't. It's just a feature of the game, albeit an important one, like any other. People whose PC won't run rF2 won't buy it. Unfortunately some will make investments and not get the benefits they expect. Me? I am on the edge and am unable to upgrade so for me it is up to ISI whether I continue and I am OK with that. I hope others are too. It would be a shame, however, for something basic to be missed like whatever is going in with build 240. But still, it is out of my hands so I will stay on 198 which suits me personally very well for offline but I won't be able to play online as most will be on latest build and won't be able to stay on it forever as future mods may not work on it so my time may be limited and I'm OK with that. But I will monitor chatter regarding upcoming builds and if consensus is that performance is improved across the board then I will try a build. Otherwise I my skip several especially if ISI does not acknowledge or claim to have fixed the problem. We'll see I guess. Good news is that I am getting into much better shape having spent much less time with rf2
The first line which doesn't even include what was above it is about if ISI were to not be forthright about system requirements. Do you disagree? The second one is that people who don't have problems are greedy if they try to influence ISI not to fix problems and instead focus on things that they want. Do you speak English?
The same moan is repeatedly made about Crysis3, Borderlands2, Skyrim GTA4 etc, infact any new game that pushes graphics boundaries. People just can't accept that sometimes new games push hardware. Just look at the the extreme level of detail in the fences and scaffolding under the temporary grandstands in Silverstone, it's amazing. The scenery is 100% spot on, everything is there, the Porsche centre, communications tower etc etc even though they are completely irrelevant to the track. You're going to need to have a decent PC to run it at high detail levels. That's how I see it.
The track runs well on my old rig, which my son uses and that is over 6 years old. It does not have an expensive graphics card (ATi HD4870 1gb) a particularly powerful cpu (e6600 core 2 duo) or lots of ram (only 3gb 800mhz) Sure it doesn't run the higher details settings well but it is capable of producing a playable experience at the medium settings with AA and AF turned on. It doesn't look terrible either. While i agree ISI do need to put some resources in optimizing the graphics engine i think maybe some people need to take a step back and realize that if you are running old hardware you can't expect to also run the high details levels. Tim already stated the Silverstone release was not the final, finished product so lets not get too carried away with discussing the FPS of the track!
To be fair to the others,,,, I have a GTX580 and things are running very well for me. I think many realise they are not getting the performance they should, but a few are expecting too much and may be disappointed. I have to add lots of AI to get down to the FPS some are getting with no AI..... and some of those people have better systems than me. I'm sure ISI have taken note of the numerous posts on the subject and it is being looked at.
There's been a lot of discussion about the poor FPS of rFactor 2 at Silverstone, so I decided to do some quantitative, rather than qualitative, tests with rFActor 2 and pCARS. I set details at their comparable settings for both detail, textures and all the graphics settings, and made sure that both .exes were making full use of SLI with my GTX 680s - nvinspector tweaks for rF2; AFR-friendly.exe for pCARS. The BMW M3 GT3 was used for pCARS at "Northampton"; the Nissan Nismo GT1 car for rFactor 2 at Silverstone. Both runs on "clear" conditions at 1300. Both run from AI by crossing the start line and stopped crossing the start line again. The results are fairly clear. FPS tracked by FRAPS. Red = rFactor 2 Blue = pCARS View attachment 8568 pCARs settings: View attachment 8569 rFactor2 settings: View attachment 8570 View attachment 8571
rFactor 2 has graphics worse than any game 2009-2013. How can you compare Crysis3, skyrim ... with rFactor2? : Facepalm: View attachment 8572 The optimization is light years behind any simulator, iRacing +200 FPS, FPS FerrariVirtualAcademy +200, AssettoCorsa +100FPS, rFactor2 20FPS track only. ISI should get to work optimization, it now! some they think it's all right.
The only difference between those two games is how they use shaders. In terms of poly count, texture size (the two things that affect fps), they're largely the same.
Exactly, some people are quite frankly ignorant. I'm sure there are improvements that can be made but that picture from FAlonso just shows the huge amount more vertices in rF2. I've had enough of this debate and shall go and just enjoy the awesomeness that is this new track.
You mean, iRacing on full details and rFactor 2 on low? Nice comparison... As for "AssettoCorsa@ +100fps and rFactor 2@ 20 fps" - I have about 60fps on full details in Assetto Corsa and noticable lag during driving. rF 2 - also full details and the same AA settings = no lag and 80-90fps. I think you have something wrong with your PC or your rF 2 installation.
Aye up! Nemti mark II is posting on here now. Another one who is comparing a basically featureless tech demo to a sim that has dynamic roads, weather, night racing, pitstops etc. Anyway, how does he know what features AC has yet, has he played it? Thought not
Yeah it would be nice to see the day when AC or others put out their game with dynamic weather and tires after FPS we'll talk.
and i add....real road tarmac...realistic collision...damage......and 15-20 all together....AI intelligence or multiplayer... ...and not just ONE lotus on a small track!! quote +10000000000000000000000000000000000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everything you are saying is true. BUT, ISI said high @ Silverstone should equal full @ Malaysia and I cannot even run it on medium. Why?
Hi, i really can´t understand your issues Kknorp. I have Q6600@3Ghz, 4MB Ram (800), HD 6870 (1GB) and I have all set to High (Textures, Track detail, etc.) Env.-, and Road reflection = low. AA 4x (set in Radeon pro). I can do a race with 16 AI and FPS is well playable. 40 lowest, 62 highest. Track still looks great with my settings though my system is 7 years old now (exept GPU). Your System schould do better. What GPU do you use?
