Considering uninstalling...is it just me?

[Nibiru Cataclysm]

I've had rF2 for nearly a year...and in that time I've played a lot of other sims as well.

But...I just find I'm playing rF2 less and less. I can never get it to look 'less than plastic'...I spend hours with the Sweetfx's. I spent hours tweaking. I turn things on..I turn things off...I throw salt over my shoulder....

...then I stick on rF1 with the virtua LM Le Mans track and I think....'rF2 looks like crap compared to this'.

I get all the 'rF2 is all about the feel, the real road, the FFB'. But that's like marrying a fat old hag with missing teeth and a beard because she's a nice personality.

I see screenshots on the net of people playing rF2 and it looks like we're playing a different game...

Am I the only person out there that's about to hit <delete> and move on because it....just doesn't *do it* for you? I am thinking I must be missing out on something if I do this, but after a year of trying to fall in love with this I still find myself going back to GTR2 or now AMS which for me is a million light years ahead of where rF2 will *ever* be.

 

[Nibiru Cataclysm]

Yea...but now it actually looks very good indeed.

 

[Andy_J]

One does not play rF2 for graphics

This ^^^

You guys who just love pretty graphics, well crack on. I prefer really good and proper driving physics any day.

 

[Marc Collins]

Wow....I've made a few more minor changes and game is now running like a dream...almost everything on max and smooth as silk.

For some reason now I'm really able to enjoy it and I've spent a lot of laps at Sebring with a big smile on my face

Thanks guys for your help and suggestions.

Could you detail what has changed? Screenshots from my system have always looked good, but as soon as the car is in motion things fall apart. Jaggies and texture transparency issues and flashing textures. And that's with Supersampling on. If I don't use Supersampling then I also get distractingly flashing shadows

I have deleted shader cache dozens of times and I cannot see any settings in player files or other places that affect basic graphics performance. I have manually changed Texture lines in the .JSON file to no avail. They make a difference, but when set to the "best" settings I can find, things still don't look that great.

AMD R9 290X and with supersampling on I can barely get usable frame rates (60+) on my rig at 2560x1080.

 

[Andy_J]

One thing I noticed just before I hit the delete key after pulling my hair out is that the geniuses changed the default texture sharpening = 5 in the most recent build when should be 0.

Edit - Colors still suck and AMS graphics and performance eats rF2's lunch.

I just downloaded the latest build last week and mine is set to =5. What exactly happens if I change it to =0 ?

 

[Emery]

What I am talking about are full body reflections of the environment and other vehicles. Even turning the option to off makes no difference.

Yes, as I recall, environment reflections are always present. The "off/low/high" settings adjust the update rate rather than the presence of reflections.

 

[Gijs van Elderen]

I just downloaded the latest build last week and mine is set to =5. What exactly happens if I change it to =0 ?

Textures will be more blurry.
Texture sharpness =0 : It avoids negative mip mapping. Some real old and out of date rF1 to rF2 conversions make use of -3 or more negative mip mapping. This results in nasty jaggies. Some people are convinced that if you put texture sharpness to off, Jaggies are history. But this is placebo.

Negative mip mapping (max -1) is still used for distance textures like trees. You view them 90% of the time from a distance and not up close. To Reduce file size you can go from a 2048x2048 texture to a 1024x1024 texture and set mip map to -1 and save a lot of space. This mip map at -1 for certain textures is a track creators choice to do this, and he does this for a reason.

So leave it at 5 = automatic. If the track still has jaggies due to negative mip mapping. Delete the track.

 

[Gijs van Elderen]

Yes, as I recall, environment reflections are always present. The "off/low/high" settings adjust the update rate rather than the presence of reflections.

Indeed, "off" doesn't work like it used too.

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

Textures will be more blurry.
Texture sharpness =0 : It avoids negative mip mapping. Some real old and out of date rF1 to rF2 conversions make use of -3 or more negative mip mapping. This results in nasty jaggies. Some people are convinced that if you put texture sharpness to off, Jaggies are history. But this is placebo.

Negative mip mapping (max -1) is still used for distance textures like trees. You view them 90% of the time from a distance and not up close. To Reduce file size you can go from a 2048x2048 texture to a 1024x1024 texture and set mip map to -1 and save a lot of space. This mip map at -1 for certain textures is a track creators choice to do this, and he does this for a reason.

So leave it at 5 = automatic. If the track still has jaggies due to negative mip mapping. Delete the track.

What kind of AA are you running?

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

I wonder why people insist on making rf2 blurry like other sims, I prefer the sharpness of real life.

What kind of AA are you running?

 

[Nibiru Cataclysm]

This ^^^

You guys who just love pretty graphics, well crack on. I prefer really good and proper driving physics any day.

With respect you're choosing to miss the point.

Not once did I say that 'I love pretty graphics'. I was expressing disappointment that MY configuration of rF2 did not look any where near as good as I knew it should, or that I see others running with a similar system.

You are trying setting up a false dichotomy of graphics vs driving physics.

If I wanted 'great graphics' over physics I'd stick Driveclub on the PS4...which has graphics that blow anything else out of the water. However the driving sucks, the game's complete rubbish.

But to ask 'how can I improve my graphics' is not thereby (as you are implying or inferring) also asking 'how can I avoid better physics'.

I want great physics but I also want great graphics. If you're on a PC forum arguing against wanting great graphics then I'd suggest the crack you're referring to is the one you're smoking.

 

[Andy_J]

I want great physics but I also want great graphics. If you're on a PC forum arguing against wanting great graphics then I'd suggest the crack you're referring to is the one you're smoking.

OK whatever young man. I don't recall arguing against great graphics, but hey ho, if you say so.
Oh and my post wasn't aimed at you either. And I don't smoke either tobacco or crack or whatever you were implying.

 

[Nibiru Cataclysm]

OK whatever young man. I don't recall arguing against great graphics, but hey ho, if you say so.
Oh and my post wasn't aimed at you either. And I don't smoke either tobacco or crack or whatever you were implying.

Well actually your reply was doing just that.... 'young man'.

But as you say - whatever.

 

[Andy_J]

Well actually your reply was doing just that....

No it wasn't David. And I'm not going to continue arguing with you.

But anyway back on topic, RF2 graphics are more than adequate for sim racing. It's that combination of good graphics and superb physics/FFB/Handling that makes it so good.

 

[Marc Collins]

No it wasn't David. And I'm not going to continue arguing with you.

But anyway back on topic, RF2 graphics are more than adequate for sim racing. It's that combination of good graphics and superb physics/FFB/Handling that makes it so good.

Gorgeous. And if it looked anything like that while in-motion using the sim, there would be zero rF2 graphics complaints or discussions. We'd all be too busy enjoying the great physics and not being distracted by things like jaggies, flickering shadows, etc.

 

[Andy_J]

Mine pretty much looks like that in motion, but only in some lighting conditions and on some tracks. But overall it's good enough surely?

 

[Gijs van Elderen]

What kind of AA are you running?

Level 4 on my laptop.

Level 6 out of 8 on my desktop with triple screens: "Older" graphic cards have 8 levels of AA. new graphic cards (+gtx 9xx serries) have only the 4 highest AA levels available.
So it depends on your graphic card.

 

[Andy_J]

View attachment 126830
Level 4 on my laptop.

Level 6 out of 8 on my desktop with triple screens: "Older" graphic cards have 8 levels of AA. new graphic cards (+gtx 9xx serries) have only the 4 highest AA levels available.
So it depends on your graphic card.

I don't use the games graphics configurator Gijs, I use Nvidia control panel so my setting in the configurator for AA is "None". What do you think is better?

 

[Gijs van Elderen]

I don't use the games graphics configurator Gijs, I use Nvidia control panel so my setting in the configurator for AA is "None". What do you think is better?

If you are happy with your graphic settings. Leave it as it is.

But be aware that shaders (in your UserData/log/shaders folder) are created based on your ingame graphic settings.

http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/rf2-graphic-bugs-things-to-check-first.106607/

 

[JeffL]

What kind of AA are you running?

in game @ 4 , 4 works optimally on my system. Less jaggies than even higher settings

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

I'll try texture sharpening = 5 next time I'm in rF2 because I'm curious now that there must be something else going on if others are able to use 5 without supersampling...