If only there was some way to save the state of a track and continue from the point you last left it.... Imagine being able to move away from a static representation of the past and into a future where every locked wheel, every spin, every doughnut, was imprinted on the track in a real time fashion. Imagine rain blowing in and washing away the rubber, making the racing line slippery, making AI take different lines. Imagine if the track you run is original to you. That every line you take, race you enter, lap you run builds YOUR version of that particular track. If that technology existed I'd call it realroad, and I'd name my save "rolling"
Who bothers to do that, just set the first session to autosave, and the rest to naturally progressing...normal rate buildup, bit of light rain every so often...boootifuul
Oh dear. You guys are really a broken record. How many times we have to reply to this same question popping up over and over again? We CAN NOT use those effects because our road technology (REALROAD) - which is coded to put effects on tarmac dynamically! Do you really do not know this? Then you start complain because devs stop writing on forums. Unbelievable.
Hi Tuttle, but RR doesn`t prevent to use a used looking tarmac as a base? I have no experience in Track building, it`s a serious question.
Yes, you can use a texture with pre-baked rubber, but they wouldn't react well with the dynamic rubber or sunlight (unless you include them in the spec mask which would result in the skidmarks looking dry even in the wet). And they produce the most hideous tiling patterns in the world. Plus even with that fake rubber, you'd still be driving on a green track which would only confuse people. Banana peels wouldn't suffer from this though ... The shader, and the tech, isn't designed to interact with fake stuff. Even decals such as cracks or tar strips don't always look that great when they're being thrown in the mix.
That's exactly what we are doing but there is a difference (big one) between a "used" tarmac and donuts, braking marks, skid marks etc. If you see our tracks road maps, they are NEVER clean 100% (unless it's on purpose as for Silverstone due the repave). You can see old tarmacs are represented as old tarmacs (just looks Mores for example or historic tracks). We could then use decals to put down donuts, skid marks etc... BUT this is not going to be a happy choice because decals on top of a dynamic surface are looking bad at the time the road will start receiving bits from the driving and/or weather. Then, if you ask me, I don't want to see the same donuts in the same place for 10 years I'm driving that place. This is NOT realism, it is NOT precision, it is NOT immersion; it is just a dead/static donut on top of the road. Big and fat static dead decals (as those donuts), on top of a dynamic road, will looks BAD with a wet surface (because the decal is dead/fake and just do nothing with rain and/or dynamic rubber...). Then we could also add those effect just inside diffuse/albedo maps on stage 1, but you have to limit A LOT this kind of usage or you'll end with a loads of multiplied materials just to put some effect here and there (this impact on VRAM and performance). We do that (just looks at the AMP road, or Mores, or Monza, or Spa etc etc...) but still creating a "base" map to be completed via RealRoad. Also, if you push on this too much you'll get loads of patterns and tilings... killing the track and fighting with the dynamic part of the simulation. Said that, there'll always be fight between fake/static versus dynamic effects. Especially if they are describing the same things; if you pre-add fake rubber lines you will get a silly difference when dynamic rubber will be there, next to the fake one. As well, a fake/static donut will looks ODD when a dynamic one will be there. So, the concept is VERY easy; we create BASE maps for roads (it is NOT true we produce just clean maps, big BS) and just let the RR do the rest. I believe I wrote this concept 40 times over here....so yeah, I'm also a broken record.
Thanks, Tuttle. I got it now I guess, if those deep explanations like yours (and Luc`s) where around earlier, dozends of questions wheren`t ask...(IMHO) However, I`m fine with the Tracks. I was just asking myself, how this RR is working. The only complain about the Track`s GFX i have, are the little bit "outwashing" colors. But this is complaining on a high Level
Thanks for explanation, cool stuff! Since this is racing simulation I personally prefer dynamic environment.
Yeah Tuttle and Luc, sensational how some basic, day one rF2 things aren´t in mind of people, even when they used the sim now for years! LOL! Could be a sign of lack of info and documentation on your side..... COULD be. Just saying....lol
Yes, thanks for explaining. I for one understand why the technology used for rF2 forces certain choices and the consequences of doing otherwise are bad. But it doesn't change the fact that other track artists in other sims choose to make tracks look more realistically worn and know how to balance that realism versus the issue of driving past the same doughnut a million times (which is somewhat unrealistic, but no more so than arriving at a track with it always looking more fresh than it ever does in real life). It will be interesting to see if iRacing has to lose the very realistic look of their tracks to implement their dynamic track technology. If they do, I will never mention this topic again, because as a sim-head, the dynamic track is more important than superficial graphics. If they do not...
Never say never The ability some people have to complain about everything is baffling. Each time I read this forum, I have more and more respect with ISI guys.
Could also be that a few people have the memory of a goldfish. j/k The guys have explained and justified their design choices countless times (quite in-depth even), like Tuttle just pointed out. It's pretty nice of them to continue to do so every time people forget what has already been explained to them.
Yes, and would be even better if it was explicitly couched in terms of acknowledgement of trade-offs, rather than as if there is one way only and assuming customers who ask about features available in competitors' products are forgetful idiots. I have always said that the rF2 team does more with less than any other team out there. It is incredible really, and I know lots of us old-timers here recognize that. On the other hand, the types of arrogant and snarky official responses that we see on here would get people fired from many companies. But lack of documentation, lack of clear development path, slow development process and the expectation that customers will spend countless hours fiddling with arcane settings is part of the ISI philosophy. I will fiddle. But rF2 would be a much more successful product if a more mainstream approach was taken to customer service and usability. An uncompromising attitude toward the sim aspects of the title is what we here all want. But I'd prefer about 10 or 50 times the number of people enjoying rF2, which will never happen with the current approach. And ISI may have a business model that doesn't require this larger user base, but we all know if there were triple the resources working on rF2 and a community of users much larger, everyone would be better off. Without sales, I don't know how you get there.
Road looks quite "clean" in this 2009 onboard, I would say it's much closer to reality than version 1.4x was.
many times reading this forum this video comes on my mind http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.p...Share-the-fun!?p=266620&viewfull=1#post266620
