+111111111 for this entire thread except the praise of Raceroom's sound; I always have thought that Raceroom's sound dynamics are very overrated. To me, Racerrom sounds like the rFactor sound engine but just with some added effects thrown in. I'm a sound freak and, to me, Raceroom sounds 80% rFactor, and 20% improvement - at best.
I think you misunderstood the subject of this thread and went off topic. It's stated in the first post - sound attenuation. The subject is more complex, as mentioned by stonec, but basically it's all about the ability of game engine to mimic real life sound attenuation within limited output range of our sound devices. This has nothing to do with sound samples found in various mods. Like above - I wanted to focus primarily on one aspect of sound - it's attenuation. In this area, R3E breaks certain barrier and enters new area of improvement. Sound samples and effects is completely different story, which I would like to keep out of this thread.
Funny how the end user NEVER gets mentioned in these audio threads. My 598hd and soundblaster xfi titanium combination blows away any of your onboard sound $50 generic audio output devices combination. I think it would be extremely hard to make a decent audio experience for everybody. I say decent because I think that is all that can be achieved. I've never really been "wow'd" by any racing sims audio. Try to try a good quality set of cans or speakers. It will change your experience in ALL your games. Cheap audio output devices are just that, cheap.
Yeah, completely! lol It's like you're saying that buying an freaking powerful sound system for your TV will make Gran Turismo sounds like the real deal.
Yes, I understand this thread has nothing to do with samples, but rather the core sound engine itself. I wasn't referring to samples at all. Heck, you can even throw in the DRM mod sound samples into an F1 2002 mod and still get the same great result (more or less) because of the good quality sound-sample files. It's not about the sound samples, but the sound engine, sound physics, etc. etc. And sadly the rFactor 2 sound engine - or atleast the way it's being utilized - is only a seemingly very minor update from the sound engine in, let's say, F1 2002 or F1 Challenge 99-02. People can "stick in" great samples, but the sound dynamics and overall sound "feel" will continue to seem fake and digital - especially when viewing from trackside/TV cams - until the sound engine itself get's updated and becomes more sophisticated and complex in it's way of sound generation. Raceroom, Project Cars, iRacing, Assetto Corsa, and possibly even Forza, have all been improving the sound engine (not just simply the samples/recordings), it needs to go much, much further than samples. It's like keeping a graphics engine from the 1990s. 90s lighting, 90s shaders, 90s reflections, 90s shadows, etc. (sound engine), but you keep making the textures more and more beautifully detailed and extremely high-res (sound samples). Sure, the textures will look amazing (sound samples sounding amazing) but you need the rest of the graphics engine to be using and interacting with those textures properly and in dynamic and complex ways like shaders, lighting, reflections, shadows, tessellation, HDR, physics, etc. Well, same with the sound engine: you can't just rely on ever-improving sound samples (textures) in a dated, unsophisticated, sound engine (graphics engine). Raising the volume will not change anything other than simply the volume being raised. It's like telling someone with, for eg. 1990s shaders, reflections, shadows, lighting, etc. to just buy a higher res and bigger monitor and to set the game to a very high resolution. That won't change anything regarding the graphics dynamics of a 1990s lighting/shaders/reflection/shadows/HDR etc. system. Furthermore, you can listen to a real-life trackside recording video on your Cellphone'a speakers and the sound dynamics/"feel"/physics will still blow away a videogame being played on a $20,000 stereo shaking the entire city-block. It has nothing to do with volume levels and speaker quality just like using a 1990s graphics engine will still be 1990s and poor regardless of if you run it at 8K resolution on an 80" monitor .
I'm listening to the R3E external sounds and I'm not impressed. Everything sounds muffled and on the same level. The volume should increase dramatically when the car approaches the camera but it doesn't. I'd say they also got plenty of work to do with attenuation.
Are you prepared to put up with the consequences of a sound engine change mid-stream? AC did that and it is the equivalent in sound to the ever-evolving rF2 lighting issues (which seem to be finished after 2+ years of changes).
It was just a general statement, which is the reason why I didn't quote anybody but what I said still stands true. I get it, the OP wants reverb and Doppler effects, which, as far as I know the current engine is capable of. Anyway........ Edit: Maybe I am lost since the game he wants rF2 to sound like uses the same sound engine. lol. nvm. I have no clue what he's trying to say with the title in the OP.
I think the message is lost in the delivery. Rather than yelling "wake up!" in my face multiple times, I'd much rather see a thread that says, "listen to how awesome the sound is on this video. Is this attainable in rf2? How?" What I hear at the track is not what I hear in any sim. That RaceRoom vid is closer, however. We've already got Doppler, Reverb, and Volume Attenuation in rf2. Do we need anything more? While working on sound for an RX8 for rf1, I noticed that the car is painfully loud, its sound bounces off everything, that sound changes relative to the distance from the emitter, also the vector of emission comes into play (car is blocking sound from traveling omnidirectionally). If your capture source was directly behind an exhaust you would pick up more sound in the higher frequencies. If off to the side the sound would become muddled. Trying to match sound from multiple sources was near impossible. Sound from a moving capture source and static emitter creates a phasing effect when trying to loop a sample. Even a few feet of movement would invalidate a sample. The conclusion I came to is that not only is volume changing but also frequencies heard with respect to distance and emission vector. I think that video does a good job at muddying the sound at distance, increasing volume as a car approaches, and creating sharpness in sound when the exhaust is close/pointed at you. Reverb/Doppler are also applied appropriately. So how do we do this in rf2? We have most of the pieces. But I think the piece missing is the filtering. I think that needs to come from ISI as either a high frequency filter from distance calc between emitter and receiver, or as a switch to another sample.
Maybe the OP is an arteest and likes to speak in riddles. Isn't it always better to say what you mean and be straight to the point? Saves the confusion IMO.
Well, sounds in rF2 are still billion times better than in Asseto Corsa, and Asseto Corsa uses very modern and good FMOD sound engine, its because whoever ISIs sound engineer is, hes a bloody star. Even Project Cars sounds same or worse than rF2, altho not trying to say that rF2 couldnt be better, compared to our "super modern ultimate simulators" comptetitors, rF2 has a significant edge.
Yep and that's mostly because of better sound samples by Greg Hill, I've no idea where Kunos gets their from but it's the sample quality where they lose.
I think this is a good example of what the sound engine is capable. Don't mind the music. There are some other vids of the R8 in his channel without music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZQ0dSQ1vGQ&hd=1
That is the limitation of speakers. - option A - use less volume - engine sound 100m away from you will be so quiet that you won't hear it, but the engine 5m from you will be nice and loud - option B - use more volume - engine sound 100m away from you will sound just fine, but engine sound 5m from you will have too much amplitude and your sound card will clip it - option C - dynamic volume, like HDR in graphics - sound engine adjusts and when car moves away sensitivity increases - you can hear it from a distance. The third option seems to be what R3E has done. You can hear distant cars with trackside camera, but not with your onboard camera, when your own engine dominates everything. Our ears can adjust, just like our eyes. Sometimes during night you can hear computer fan in your neighbours apartment. Not a chance during day when there's traffic on the street. Finding a way to squeeze these dynamics into home computer is something of a challenge, but it's pretty much the same type of challenge as HDR in graphics engines - it can be done and we (pretty much) know how. Exactly the opposite. This is from my first post: When discussing sound in games everyone focuses on samples, doppler, reverb, etc. This thread was all about focusing attention on things that most people don't think about and leave common discussions out. I tried to state it clearly, but I assumed people will jump in and talk the usual. You simply cannot prevent that On the other hand - I think I collected enough attention as it is
Yup, lots of nice examples. Obviously part of the difference can be given to Doppler effect, but it's clear that there's definitely more at work than just Doppler effect - especially with some more "racey" cars. Thanks for posting.
Yes, that's why I used Maserati as clear example. There's probably more to it, than just sound direction (much more). That's why I didn't want to be too specific. But the point is - Doppler effect alone is not enough. The gap between real sound and typical in-game sounds is too obvious. Nice to see developers start to work on this subject.
Only way to achieve this is to work on the core sound engine rather than just improving sound samples for years-on-end - that'll get you nowhere. It's the same with a graphics engine; you can't just use a graphics engine from 1995 and keep adding in higher and higher resolution and detailed textures for years and expect to have your game's visuals look like Battlefield or Crysis or Project Cars, etc. just because your textures are as good or even better than those other games. Sure, the "raw" texture files themselves (or sound samples if talking about sound) will look (sound) good, but without the graphics engine's dynamics affecting those textures - Eg. tessellation, lighting, shaders, shadow casting, HDR, physics-to-graphics translation, reflections, sunlight, how light "bounces" around, etc. - they'll only ever be nice textures and nothing more because the dated graphics engine doesn't allow those beautiful textures to have any sort of dynamic connection to the environment, they aren't alive, they aren't "connected" to the world in any sort of way. It's exactly the same with improving the sound engine VS just improving "raw" sound samples for years-on-end.
