1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

iRacing Vs rFactor - Legends cars @ Laguna Seca

Discussion in 'rFactor' started by Steven Ciofalo, Feb 17, 2011.

  1. I have been wondering the differences in lighting more then anything with iRacing over rFactor so I borrowed my friends account for testing. I am sure the windshield in the rFactor version has affected the color as it seems awfully dull. I also mistakenly removed ALL head movement from rFactor when I should have left some. Used the stock iRacing cockpit view with the FOV on at its lowest single screen setting (45 H) so to match I set rFactor's FOV to 28 Vertical dictated by my screen. Math is fun. Also I set rFactor to 12 noon but the sun seems to be in a different position than iRacing. Not sure of the time in there.



    I recorded the iRacing version first and played the lap back on my 9" netbook. I eventually figured out to wait 5 seconds after the ir video to try and copy it. What a pain!

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  2. Very interesting,a little bit more proof the differences do not hold up against the difference of the two prices for each game.

    Thank you.
     
  3. After watching that I can say for sure any one that pays for iRacing is silly. All that money and the rFactor is just as good if not better in some parts of the track. the only thing I thought was better is the lighting on the iRacing track
     
  4. I think you'll find it'd be the quality of the textures use. High res compared to low res. rFactor dare I say it once again, is "old" compared to iRacing. iRacing tracks are made by people getting "paid" to make them with better resources at their disposal. The iRacing graphic engine is more up to date and it wouldn't surprise me if it could run DX10 or higher when rF is a lower form of DX9 compared to what DX9 is capable off today.

    There is "no" comparison and nor there should be considering the age and resources differences between the two.

    Dare I say again! rFactor's track builders are doing a fantastic job at getting their tracks as close as they do with the resources available to them and the limitations a "old" platform has to offer. This constant complaining and comparing, (I want Lazar scanned tracks!) is getting old and is driving some of the communities best track builders to give up! Lazar scanning a track is a time consuming and expensive exercise. Then you need access to the track when there's no racing so you need to be there during the week when the rest of us are at work making a living.

    Yeah you guested it! I'm sick of this type of threads comparing iRacing & rFactor! It's just total BULLS^&T!

     
  5. Take a pill Dougie. There are reasons for threads like this. Helping someone deciding weather to spend umpteen dollars on iRacing and keep paying to have laser tracks and pro cars can be pointed out as moot. I haven't bought iRacing. I refuse to buy something I can't try first. Yes, I know iracing currently has open testing for a month for free.. But I would still have to buy the cars and tracks with only youtube videos to base quality on.

    Besides, I used the video up-top in the rF2 wishlist thread on the ISI forums. I wanted to show the extremes of the sun's lighting and request the ability to adjust it to our preference.
     
  6. This is the first video, where you can see both sims side by side in an proper way.
    Really have to thank you Steven. Good work.

    Could you please tell me how you did the calculation of the Fov?
     
  7. Kevin Ascher

    Kevin Ascher
    #47 Roaring Pipes Maniacs

    Silly thread
     
  8. IMHO looks really good from T1 to T6, not bad to T6 and T8, a bit wrong from t8 to T10 (corkscrew and next turns), and again good from T10 to T1.
    Anyway it's good, specially because built without laserscanning.
     
  9. The argument about iRacing not being worth the money is not just based off of the track and car models or textures like you guys make it seem. With rFactor, you get a basic sim. A piece of code that other then get to work with. That is it.

    When you pay for iRacing, you get a full service. A bunch of high quality cars and high quality tracks, as well as high quality damage models. Ok, awesome. Then, you get a competitive racing service. Races full of decently competent drivers any time of the day. You get matched with drivers on a similar skill level as yourself to make the racing even more interesting. Plus, you get one of the most active sim racing forums I have ever been to, live streaming races, and much more.

    My friends and I had a lengthy discussion about this last night actually. It pretty much comes down to, if you are big into competitive racing, iRacing is the way to go. If you are a once a month league racer or something like that, it would not be your cup of tea.

    Where I stand right now, I would continue my iRacing subscription just for the forums.

    But yeah, to argue if it is worth it, you really have to take iRacing as a whole into consideration.
     
  10. Agreed, Evan. It's not the physics, handling, or graphics that distinguishes iRacing from rFactor, and all these comparison videos are just missing the point.

    However what I have always missed in rFactor is decent lighting. There's shadows in the cockpits in iRacing, but everything looks more flat in rFactor. I know complaining about the graphics is a stupid way to go, but it makes a big difference in immersion for me. And I don't even think it's that much to ask.

    Cryengine 2, despite how great it may look, actually has a very simple lighting system. It's just age old direct lighting with a basic post process effect and shadow mapping. And look at the result. Hardly seems much to ask for, does it?