Where is bloom in new lightning system?

I think he used clear sky for baseline coops.

The only ambiance matters to me is what it looks like from the cockpit.

 

Yes

 

agree Durge i don't look at it any other way or view.

 

Build 946 is a huge improvement for lighting, I need no more to use specific profiles by track.

I tried the karts at Quebec and I was really surprised, the track looked very natural.

It is more than probable that existing tracks will have to be adapted to suit the new HDR.

Thanks a lot Tuttle, a really good job.

 

@Nuno

That third compositing you did it's unbalanced. The sky looks polarized through a lens, while the terrain it is going to a different direction. Sky intensity and gradient are not coherent with the scene illumination. Just do not fit. It is something I'd expect to see on a chopped picture or a wrong skydome output, as we were getting before, especially on noon and along equator degrees.

 

@Tuttle

Is it possible to change the turbidity of the sky (gdb parameter for instance) or do you have plans to include this in future updates with a more complex weather system?

 

I'm not aware of any plan to make it adjustable per track nor to introduce a more complex weather system. At this point what you see (HDR, PostFx and Sky) it's something we could consider final. We may see some update on that area but just to fine tune something (if needed) or improve performance.

 

It would be nice to have the turbidity adjustable. With the new build I see a very bright horizon (white point clipping) at some tracks and looking at stonecs Sepang picture a few posts above there seems to be a lot of smog and particles in the air.

This is what I see in devmode.


Max turbidity. Ok, it's a bit over the top, but it's great to see how it changes the ratio between direct and ambient light (physical correct) .


Slightly adjusted setting

 

Turbidity it's just the max visibility range on a clear day. It has nothing to do with "realism". It may change per day, per hour, per altitude, per weather status.

 

I can't remember if it was Luc or Tim or you that made some vague teaser comment to someone asking about possible cloud improvements lol
The layering and the way the clouds roll and change is great, I'll still keep my fingers crossed for some new cloud types though XD

 

I don´t see that Tuttle. Right now in 946 I see an almost white sky when touching the horizon (Completely unreal) and little light on the rest of the scene.

I swear to god that the color I see in sky in pic of my preference is exactly the same color that I see outside in reality...

I will recalibrate all the 4 displays I've tried to be sure that they are right and then check again

 

It depends a bit on track as well, put Interlagos at 12 PM and sky will not be much white. But I agree it's a bit too much on some tracks.

 

Bloom is not a lense effect. It is caused by overfilled sensor cells, where the charge oversplahes to the next cell so that you only get a 255 255 255 RGB signal without any detail.

 

To those saying that Bloom is simply a digital phenomenon: Your eyes are organic cameras that have lenses that convert external photonic stimuli into an digital electrical impulses. So technically that is correct, but only partially. If Bloom isn't a 'real thing' then why have drivers for a very long time said that Nordscheife 'batters their eyeballs', and why do we wear sunglasses in the sun? As to not overexpose the image our lenses are processing.

Speaking on a personal note, I have always have overly sensitive eyes and MUST wear sunglasses (and in rare cases Tinted Contacts) outside or else I experience VERY REAL bloom everywhere, ironically very similar to cockpit exposure of build 930. I generally tend to wear dark polarized shades, and I've noticed a lot of games these days force you to wear a pair of non-existent sunglasses. I will admit GTA:V has done an excellent job of simulating the naked eye, as well as shaded eyes in their Tonemapping abilities. A good blend of bloom, contrast, turbidity and saturation. Rockstar also has the budget of a large 3rd World Country, so considering that I'd say ISI has done a great job with this build.

I'm going to be using ReShade + MasterEffects (Thanks for the pointers Tosch) to try to recreate some overexposure and bloom, but the new tonemapper nullifies many of the settings I had in ReShade so I should be able to pick up some FPS in the process. Not a bad deal I suppose.

 

http://luthuli.cs.uiuc.edu/~daf/courses/Rendering/Papers3/spencer95.pdf

This paper is from '95--well before digital sensors were being widely used in photography.

 

+1

Perhaps just a slight boost of brightness in full and high sun, but overall we are very close to where we need to be with 946. There is just a bit too little variation between high full sun and lower levels of sun or clouded scenes from my personal eye perspective.

 

I think you're spot on with this. I did notice that in Late Afternoon and Sunset conditions, when the Sun is supposed to be most aggressive to the driver, was pretty calm. Driving into a Sunset is a very difficult thing to do in real life, perhaps moreso than driving at night because of the conflicting conditions (bright directional spot light, low ambient light, high contrast, long shadows and bloom) All of that is really, really close but just a tiny bit off.

That being said it may be something ISI is 'done' with, but perhaps it's possible a Third-Party Genius can tweak what we have for better composition. (No pressure Tosch lol)

I'm trying to get the new ReShade settings good for me and I will post what I have if there are those interested.

 

Well, I think we're mixing lot of stuff here with bloom, lens flare, video glow filters, sun/light glare, sky gradients, autoexposure, pupil functionality etc etc.. Probably you are all telling correct things but referring to very different phenomena.

BTW, I'm personally (so I'm talking for myself not for ISI) against to simulate the eye functionality with this level of detail, for a main reason; we're talking about sort of paradox, where I'm using my eyes (with my own real eye functionality) to watch an eye simulation (with its own eye functionality). Means I'm watching the driver eyes doing something my real eyes don't need to do while facing my monitors, and then I'm forced to accept (mostly my brain) this continuous input flow of light variations, glare popping up here and there (even if I'm not watching that particular part of the screen) just because I know it's something my eye probably would see if I were that driver in real life. It's very similar to see our hands gripping our real FFB wheel and then another pair of hands in the monitor, but probably much more annoying because it is affecting and adjusting the brightness of the scene, while my pupils are not stimulated enough to follow the same evolution, and if they are doing something... they'll try to compensate the opposite way. So, at the time I see the scene going dark because I'm facing the sun, while driving, I'm just passively annoyed by that. I need a background reasoning to manage and accept this flow, something I really wouldn't like to add to my concentration, especially if I'm trying to drive to the limits.

Also, putting this system on a bright room where you sit your simulator, means getting a VERY annoying experience, with our pupils adapting the overall room luminosity and then watching that dark/bright/overexposed/underexposed flow of frames....

This would be good stuff for replays (passive watching), screenshots, teasers etc...but no way I'd use something like that during a race simulation.

 

I see what you mean Tuttle, thank you for that explanation.

The thing that frustrates me about Bloom, is that in most games Bloom is a constant factor, which borders on Virtual Cataracts. Bloom (or the way our eyes process bloom) is intelligent in nature because we only see true bloom in certain conditions such as high contrast situations or while engulfed in shadows like a tunnel. Also I believe we artificially broaden the parameters for Bloom to make it more dramatic, where bloom would truly only affect certain white materials. For example you would be much more likely to experience bloom while racing on a temporary street circuit lined with buildings and concrete walls, than you would at say Sebring, which is grassy and open. Also you will see bloom in relation to Concrete Walls, but you will not see White cars you're racing against bloom, unless they are matte and very white. The light will generally refract off the paint and cause a specular highlight, which is equally blinding but much, much more concentrated.

These are things that are very difficult to tame and we are still probably a few years off of the computing power necessary to fully simulate realistic atmospheric and lens effects for a real-time driving simulation.

You guys have done an Amazing job with the new Tonemapper and everything looks far more natural and sun-lit than ever before. Like I said, I think many people can't help but compare it to 'what they're used to', AAA games (like GTA) which likely have a lighting budget similar to your entire budget. So rock on with your bad selves!

 

come on guys we've got to accept that rf2 will get to some point where progress in this area is considered halted & a present state is considered final
( with maybe few minor tweeks in the future etc ) & it seems that it's about at that point now which is great news

they'll always be something's that can be pointed at for night being quite right ( which could be down to opinion too)
Iracing / AC etc can be scrutinised in exactly the same way & they don't have any where near the dynamics of this title
( each too has its good points as well as bad of course, Iracing although another great title is static city )

a fixed standard across the board, older tracks get updated to fit in as best as poss with the final lighting system, new tracks fully compatible with it, 3rd party tracks -that's up to the modder & skill,
I prefer no gimmicks fairly plain look , HDR gives it all a nice sprinkle of sugar.

rf2 looks pretty darn good & I'd say when the dynamics are taken into account unbeatable
( on the better tracks & no doubt will be the case with future ones )

also graphics are secondary to the important stuff to me yet it's the graphics that seem to get focused on a lot

p.s I've not even seen the latest 2 builds