[WIP] Transfagarasan road in coming to rFactor2

Would you like race the challenge?

  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
No not AO on the objects, but the idea would be an actual object that would have a purpose of AO specifically. Like a plane 1cm over the ground for ambient shadows under the cars, just like actual cars use that we drive in game. Some stuff could be used to improve the look of many other different elements. Of course baking vertex alpha is better, but I don't think that vertex density will meet the needs in all cases ?

I never noticed that rF2 has billboarding trees till I learned that from modding lol But yeah perhaps never drove tracks with very dense and close to the track forest at that time.

I see how shadows is a problem, perhaps IBL features will help, I think they should, though I have not used them yet. My track doesn't have very much shadowing, but even so I have taken some actions to make shadows brighter. I simply use brighter tone ambient color through gJed. Seems to work well to me. Though I have major obstacles to overcome, such as the fact that I am in blender software now.... (which is great, but not for gmt) There are multiple tracks which are screaming for brighter shadows, it doesn't seem to be so bad in all tracks, but don't think it makes tracks unusable. In your case I think it would be awesome if rF2 had auto exposure, or maybe it has ? Probes doesn't do something like that ?

I just checked your thread, and this interesting picture tells me that shadows aren't that terrible, but at the same time I think yours version is better, but I would choose something in the middle, perhaps more towards your side. Original shadows definitely doesn't look how my eyes see them IRL. http://www.mediafire.com/view/392w5ee9w3o16p9/Ambient_light_rF2.jpg
While it was said by Tuttle that your method of rocketing up sky luminance is wrong and will break a lot of things, the appearance is good in the screenshot. Perhaps I'd say the shadowed hill in the far distance looks like it is no more in a shadow, but close distance shadowed area looks somewhat good to me. Couldn't be that there is something simply unknown what is not taken in to a measure ? Like light in a scene being bounced of the nearby objects. I know thats some RTX stuff, but it could be approximated some how I guess. If being totally picky the light painted surfaces from concrete barriers would share a great deal of light alone.

Funny that you mention the moon :D
 
Last edited:
mantasisg said:
No not AO on the objects, but the idea would be an actual object that would have a purpose of AO specifically. Like a plane 1cm over the ground for ambient shadows under the cars, just like actual cars use that we drive in game. Some stuff could be used to improve the look of many other different elements. Of course baking vertex alpha is better, but I don't think that vertex density will meet the needs in all cases ?

I never noticed that rF2 has billboarding trees till I learned that from modding lol But yeah perhaps never drove tracks with very dense and close to the track forest at that time.

I see how shadows is a problem, perhaps IBL features will help, I think they should, though I have not used them yet. My track doesn't have very much shadowing, but even so I have taken some actions to make shadows brighter. I simply use brighter tone ambient color through gJed. Seems to work well to me. Though I have major obstacles to overcome, such as the fact that I am in blender software now.... (which is great, but not for gmt) There are multiple tracks which are screaming for brighter shadows, it doesn't seem to be so bad in all tracks, but don't think it makes tracks unusable. In your case I think it would be awesome if rF2 had auto exposure, or maybe it has ? Probes doesn't do something like that ?

I just checked your thread, and this interesting picture tells me that shadows aren't that terrible, but at the same time I think yours version is better, but I would choose something in the middle, perhaps more towards your side. Original shadows definitely doesn't look how my eyes see them IRL. http://www.mediafire.com/view/392w5ee9w3o16p9/Ambient_light_rF2.jpg
While it was said by Tuttle that your method of rocketing up sky luminance is wrong and will break a lot of things, the appearance is good in the screenshot. Perhaps I'd say the shadowed hill in the far distance looks like it is no more in a shadow, but close distance shadowed area looks somewhat good to me. Couldn't be that there is something simply unknown what is not taken in to a measure ? Like light in a scene being bounced of the nearby objects. I know thats some RTX stuff, but it could be approximated some how I guess. If being totally picky the light painted surfaces from concrete barriers would share a great deal of light alone.

Funny that you mention the moon :D
Click to expand...

My friend......the key is autoexpossure/HDR.....both, for me, do not working.
 
I think that is interesting topic, I don't think there is one answer. IMO just let S397 do their thing, it eventually will be sorted out IMO. I can not speak about probes (have not tried) but I think they are ok, if they work.

Just keep up with the track please, my god it looks good comparing to what has been before with this gem.
 
Hi guys!
I am loking for flag anims to implement in project. Does anyone know where can I download the assets?
Thanks
 
Not just broken, but badly broken! :eek::(

And sadly, I know Bink hasn't logged in since S397 migrated the forum.
 
It has been paused due to main reason of:x64 plugins do not work properly, making it impossible to export.
 
Goibaka said:
It has been paused due to main reason of:x64 plugins do not work properly, making it impossible to export.
Click to expand...
That must be really frustrating, G. You've put so much self into this love affair with the Trans. Merci. Hope it gets sorted out someday soon.
 
The project will have to wait, it does not depend on me anymore.

Surely the S397 team has other priorities but I think that this should be the main one because it is a necessary/main tool since thinking about working with x86 plugins is something of the past (welcome to the year 2019).

The following lines are motivated with the intention of serving constructively and not as a deliberate criticism, also from a user point of view.
I also think that rF2 is showing very weak points on in basic features at a visual level which makes it lose its attractive for many users nowdays. Ok, rF2 for me and for many users, has the best feedback system / livetrack / dynamic weather / etc, ... but....:
  • Why not improves its visual level simply to bring it a little more to the present?.
  • rF2 (ISI) came with a HDR profiles system which was wonderful and worked properly (currently disabled) why?
  • Why the images don't seem to have HDR feature? It seems like the HDR of rf2 is giving more contrast but is not it just the reason why the High Dynamic Range appeared to avoid that?
  • rF2 (ISI) had a autoexposure control in the light, like the vast majority of the games for years, and worked correctly so ... why was it almost disabled?
  • ...
Above points are some basic points only, but they make projects of this type (roads with shadows of nearby trees, large mountains, ...) not seen properly.

I have tried to contact S397 to study the ways to publish the project. I want to have some security in my work that is not going to be stolen, sold and exported to other platforms as SIMTRAXX has accustomed us. I have not received an answer yet, so I guess they have no interest in it at the moment. It would have been a good opportunity to implement "challenge events" for open tracks in rf2 and thus include it in the new UI

Viewer screenshoot!


Please, feel free to comment on this.
 
Whats there to study with S397 for ways to release a mod ? You just release it or not, and thats it. Even weirder sounds aiming to get connected with the new UI.

I used to think that Simtraxxx makes a deal with original authors before porting tracks in their odd ways. Never heard about any resistance towards them, especially having in mind their model of making money from porting content.

It is unfortunate that you move back and forward about continuing working on your track. I am sure many would enjoy the track, and I sure would do too, it looks great from screenshots. But looks like expectations has to be turned off. It is unfair to push S397, I support criticism and good points, but you can't demand. I would still suggest trying simply brighter ambient colors, so objects would be more visible in the shadows during day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top