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

rFactor 2 - First Impression

Discussion in 'rFactor 2' started by Red Time, Feb 19, 2016.

  1. Red Time

    Red Time
    mid-field punter! Premium Member

    Just picked up rF2 on the Steam sale. Background is Assetto Corsa, Dirt Rally and Euro Truck 2; history of car sims back to the Geoff Crammond days. Bought mainly to see what Empty Box meant when he said some cars on some tracks are first rate in this game. Be interested to hear your recommendations on car/track combinations.

    Experience in rf2 is limited to date, but first impressions (GTX660, i5-3492, W10). Graphics in-game and UI are in the stone-age! Graphics do matter! The racetrack infrastructure (kerbs etc not buildings) is flat as. As a driver you are always scanning forward for turn-in points, the apex of turns, track conditions, rumble strips, etc. Not to mention being able to use the actual instruments in the car, not an overlay of some description. The track detail is very flat and is sub-standard for a 2016 game.

    Physics: To compensate for the well below average graphics, most reviewers cite the "physics"/tyre behaviour of the game. I'm hoping your car/track recommendation might steer me in the right direction here. To date I have not had a "wow" this is so much better moment. For 99% of us, gaming is as close as we are going to get to the tracks and cars in any sim. So our assessment of car behaviour is entirely subjective or, at best, it will be comparative re our experience of other sims (current and older).

    FFB: The rf2 FFB guy has done a good job here and it appears to be at standard.
    P.S. Been lapping with the Skip Barber around Silverstone. Think I am starting to understand the "physics" argument. The FFB when sliding is probably the best I have experienced, so a big tick in that box. Shame there is not a Skip Barber equivalent in AC to compare.

    AI: Regarded as one of the best implementations going around, so I'm looking forward to the SP experience (AC has improved from a low base but I'm expecting rF2 to set a new standard for me here).
    Weather: Another plus for rf2, looking forward to experiencing the implementation.
    Track wear: Supposed to be one of the best around for this.
    UI: an unattractive mess - not looking forward to digging through this to figure it out.
    Content: seems to offer a good combination of cars and tracks.

    Not a write-off yet with plenty to look forward to. I'm willing to spend more time with this in the hope of finding the "sweet-spot" in this game. Hopefully, with some considered car/track recommendations to fast track this.
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Haha Haha x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Beer Beer x 1
  2. You sound somewhat similar to my impressions back a few years, rF2 and SCE both turned me off at first based on graphics alone. A couple years later, after finding all of the nuances of these games... now my favorites. I was always a graphics junky, I rated my experience first on graphics.
    I have all of the sims, and most every racing game on consoles and computers dating back to the 90's. To each their own, my preferences are not everyone's but for racing simulation their is MUCH more important things to me graphics (within reason, I still like a good looking game). I love the looks of pCARS, AC, next gen Forza but the racing and little things that hold my interest aren't in those.
    All I can say, if you truly enjoy sim racing give these titles time to sink in. Even graphically they both can look pretty good, if you know how to tweak.
    My $.02
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
  3. @Red Time
    I highly reccomend the latest version of the Renault Megane (V1.02)

    <Mod Edit: Posting links and/or hyperlinked text to downloads that are not hosted on www.racedepartment.com/downloads/, but rather an external third party website, will be removed unless the user has been specifically authorised by RaceDepartment to do so.>

    As for tracks you are best served with the original rF2 tracks by ISI and 3PA http://rfactor.net/web/rf2/rf2dl/

    Then I suggest you drive on a track you know of the abovementioned and build a setup that suits your style for the Megane. I think then it will come to you. For me it has the WOW factor.

    I can also recommend for a good driving/racing/WOW experience the Flat6 Mod here: http://www.racedepartment.com/downloads/flat6-series-by-enduracers-and-gr.8370/

    I am also making some track reviews here which might guide you because there are many tracks of varying quality which can waste a great deal of time....

    Keep us posted on how you get on and your observations as you delve deeper into rF2 because a lot of what you say in OP were my thoughts in the early days of my rF2 experience. But I think I hit that sweet spot and am now rF2 converted!
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 20, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. I could have written the above because it is exactly how I think too!
  5. tpw


    As they say: you don't get a second chance to make a first impression, and rF2 generally gives a pretty bad first impression due to its unappealing graphics and presentation. I vividly remember being stunned (and not in a good way) by the austere shaders, ugly textures, drab grey green low contrast tone mapping, lifeless track environments and unrealistic cockpits when I first fired up the demo. Like most on this subforum I've since come to appreciate the incredible depth and completeness of the simulation rF2 offers, despite its barely acceptable graphics and less than exemplary performance. It's ISI's prerogative to prioritise simulation over presentation, but I often wonder how many more customers they would attract and keep if they gave a little more attention to the way the game looks and brought it up to the visual standards that gamers expect in 2016. R3E is proof that an ISImotor based sim can look absolutely fantastic and run well. A game that looked like R3E but with the simulation depth of rF2 would have me drooling on my wheel.
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. rFactor 2 menu's are among the best in the business IMO - simple, and you quickly learn where everything fits/lays when you need it. I'm not sure if it's just because you are new to it, but if you are coming from PCars and Assetto Corsa, this should be an absolute doddle.

    There are some inaccuracies in some aspects(wet weather line being fastest on the normal drying line etc.), but overall you couldn't buy a better driving experience on PC.

    Also sounds like your graphics settings may be out of whack, as I don't experience any difficulty driving with them, "looking forward to apexes, rumble strips etc". We had a 12 hour race at Sebring a few months ago and even in changing light conditions it was very driveable.
    • Haha Haha x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. Silverstone is fairly flat & uninteresting even in real life. You want more "character"? Try other tracks like Longford or Sebring or AMP or Mores or Portugal or Belgium or Monte Carlo. Do some actual races once you're comfortable with the car of choice instead of hotlapping.

    BTY, you've got some odd notion that you can't use the actual dashboard and have to use an HUD overlay. I can tell you that I don't use the HUD and the real car instruments are perfectly fine provided they're in your FOV or you're using TrackIR. Especially true for the formula cars.

    Agree that the UI needs work. ISI has never been strong on UI useability. Some of that comes down to the sheer quantity of options they make available, but more noticeable is that the flow stumbles. However, if you don't like the UI, you're free to install another one or design your own.
  8. If you haven't already done so, you might want to take a look at the rF2 tracks created by feels3 before he was hired by SimBin/Sector 3: Poznan, Croft, & Putnam Park. Pity he hasn't kept his blog updated

    <Mod Edit: Posting links and/or hyperlinked text to downloads that are not hosted on www.racedepartment.com/downloads/, but rather an external third party website, will be removed unless the user has been specifically authorised by RaceDepartment to do so.>
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 20, 2016
  9. Unfortunately a 660 is not going to cut it with rfactor 2 if you are bothered about graphics. There are a few tweaks you can do but you do need something with a bit of power. The first time I tried rfactor 2 I was blown away and that was with lower gfx than I have now. The physics/ffb and just general car behaviour had me instantly. There various UI mods and stuff to help pretty the game up but in my opinion the driving experience is second to non, especially the new vehicles. The new Meganes are stunning to drive and nice to look at.


    I use this background by the way.

    • Like Like x 1
  10. I guess I'm the only one who plays RF2 that doesn't give a damned at all about the UI. So what if it's not pretty? I don't care. I spend my time on the track. As far as I'm concerned, everything is presented in a logical manner and making it prettier is not going to make it better for me. I know where everything is that I need. As for graphics on the track...again that's not why I'm here. Whether a spectator in the stands has blue or green eyes is meaningless when I'm racing. I don't need better graphics to find my brake or turn-in points after I learn the track. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I want ISI to spend their time improving the physics, the car handling and the race features and not on making it look prettier. I have the Codemasters games, and they are prettier. Occasionally I go back and try to play them, but I quickly return to RF2 because it's just a better game in the things that matter.
    • Agree Agree x 9
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. I agree, I found my self missing some very basic configuration options but only because it was a new interface. It didn't take me long to discover and appreciate the UI. It's hard to simplify a UI when there are so many options available.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Graphics are more than descent. Also you have to think what they try to show you on screen ( tyre flex, weather, dynamic line etc).
    Other games cheat on this ( like iracing + R3H which have static pre configured ours of day = shaders configured for these hours).

    Also graphics are natural + crisp .
    Best part is the motion of camera which adds to immersion and make you feel like driving a car.
    In AC you need the real head motion app and it's still not that good.

    FFB is simply the best. Period. AC's is really close but can't match rF2's . I still can't understand why AC is fighting me when countersteer.

    And for the OP : please take the Brabham-Repco BT20 at Nordschleife. Last time i did, i drove for 3 hours . Couldn't stop.
    Still can't find another game to transmit to me the fear and the feeling of speed of the above combo.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Frederic Schornstein

    Frederic Schornstein
    TXL Racing Premium Member

    That is true about the fear and speed (maybe Dirt Rally), but you can be pretty damn scared in rF2 when going really fast. I mean not in an iRacing "I dont know that is going to happen way". More like I am scared of what risks I allow myself to take as the car responds so well to what I am doing.

    A good way to have fun in rF2 is to check out some leauges. I did a few experiments with myself and found what made the diffrence between AI and hotlapping vs a very good online race. My heart rate while hotlapping is around 90 to110 bpm as I have quite demanding wheel and pedals. Throw me into a really top end dog fight in a leauge race and it can go over 160bpm. I dont know if that is the same for everyone, but really good multiplayer battles give me a massive buzz :D
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Red Time

    Red Time
    mid-field punter! Premium Member

    The bulk of this post I wrote in the AC 1.5 update thread but thought it would be a useful note on my progress with rF2 here. Thanks to everyone for your suggestions and I will certainly try the mods and ideas offered.

    The first post was my first impression of rF2. Now that I have 10-15 hrs on rF2 I can say that it is almost inevitable that you will rate the graphics poorly if you come from an AC background. However, after about 10-15 hrs your eyes "tune-in" to rF2 and you realise that the graphics are not poor re AC, it is just a different palette and interpretation, and in its own way quite good. Not on a par with AC re details and overall quality, but not as bad as first impression coming from an AC background.

    I was interested in the Skip Barber, so fired up the Lime Rock track and cut some laps. Four-wheel drifting in the Skip is fun on stilts! The FFB, sound and visual feedback while driving the Skip, especially when drifting, is better than anything I have experienced in AC. Shame there is not a Skip mod for AC.

    Enjoying the experience of the track "rubbering-up".

    My biggest gripe ATM is the lack of a manual. If you were new to car sims rF2 would seem almost impenetrable. I downloaded a better looking UI - this area of the game does need some work.

    My GTX660 struggles to keep up with rF2 - most notably the mirrors.
  15. That's really strange. 90fps all the time here with almost all maxed out. What is your CPU?
    I had a huge fps increase when i upgraded from q9300 to i5 4460 (kept same GPU).

    Also try this combo : Brabham-Repco BT20 at Nordschleife
    Is a million times better than Skip Barber (which is great).
  16. Red Time

    Red Time
    mid-field punter! Premium Member

    i5 4690K, w10 64bit, GTX660 8Gb
    The mirrors (as in the reflective part) lack detail and you can see the "re-draw" as you progress around the track (sorry, don't know the technical term).