rFactor 2 Review: keeping up with the times?

GRAB_009.JPG


We wanted to take a look at rFactor 2's status in 2015, three years after the release of the first open beta. ISI's new title was initially surrounded by mixed reactions, but what's the story after so many updates and new content releases?


First things first: rFactor 2 is daunting. The sim's main strength - that is, the incredibly wide range of options and variables - can feel a tad too much for the newbie. There really is a lot of stuff to delve into, not only in terms of gameplay and simulation options but also in terms of mods and configuration files. Do stick with it though, because there's gold to be found in rFactor 2.

So, let's start with the surface, that is the graphics. I personally doubt the average simracer cares much about graphics, but after mainstream hits like Project Cars and Assetto Corsa, it's hard not to take this aspect into consideration. Well, it's not bad! RF2 can be pretty system-intensive, so Joe Average will probably have to dial the settings down, but it looks pretty decent. While not the best-looking racer by a stretch, it's perfectly capable of painting great racing scenes. It does look more natural than the first builds, as well.

Some circuits are clearly simpler and outdated, but the developers are currently working on revamping the older tracks in the roster, as well as updating the cars - which brings me to the meatier stuff: the car roster. The game content has to be downloaded through rFactor 2's fantastic launcher and content manager, but the dev team has apparently switched to a new content format, so some older cars have to be downloaded from the official website. ISI is in the process of updating those to the newer format, making them available from within the launcher, however, there's no ETA yet.

GRAB_010.JPG


One of the main flaws is that the content is kind of sparse, and always has been since launch. I believe a real-world racing series would gain rFactor 2 quite a bit of visibility, but it seems that ISI is indeed working on that. We have in fact managed to obtain pre-release access to the Stock Cars, and those certainly represent a positive step towards a more focused content roster. The dev team has recreated the 2015 NASCAR season with three different car models, obviously with fantasy car names and teams.

And oh boy, are the Stock Cars a blast. They only have four gears, but are capable of ludicrous speed and acceleration - oval racers will want to keep this in their radar. They also sound positively raucous and brutal. At the moment, only Indianapolis and Mountain Peak Speedway are suitable for the Stock Cars, but we could assume ISI is working to add more locations to go with them.

Circuits share the same philosophy as cars; they're diverse, if a bit sparse. The more recent releases are very high-quality, with very detailed trackside areas and landscapes: they're functional and look good in most circumstances, which is what ultimately matters. There's something intoxicating about ISI's replica of Monaco '66, and that circuit manages to exude a lovely vintage atmosphere – along with being an incredibly fun layout. It's more or less like the current street circuit, but faster and more streamlined.

Special mention for Lime Rock Park, which is just a great circuit that goes well with many of the official cars, and the newly released Atlanta Motorsports Park - a very original and technical addition to the roster.

GRAB_012.JPG


On-track, any notion of content lacking focus is immediately forgotten. This is where rFactor 2 really shines: the detail of the Force Feedback model is immediately apparent. While I've read many people say that FFB response is something subjective, and I tend to agree, there's a degree of nuance here that's hard to replicate in other simulators. Behind the wheel, it's always easy to know what the car is doing. Users with older wheels will have to tone it down a notch to avoid jolts and clipping, but after fiddling a bit with the configuration files (something rFactor 1 players are familiar with) it won't be an issue at all.

The FFB works in tandem with the game's dynamic road and weather features: driving on worn tires or on a wet patch of road will have noticeable effects on the steering. I don't feel the need to spend many words on the Real Road feature as well, as it's pretty straightforward and it's something unique to the game. It just works, and it adds another layer of strategy and detail to the simulation. Additionally, ISI is working on a revamp of the weather system, also adding more visual effects (like water on the windscreen, which is oddly missing here).

RF2's main selling points are online and endurance racing. However, the game's online focus doesn't detract from the AI, which is quite simply the best around. While titles like Stock Car Extreme and Raceroom feature very good CPU-controlled opponents, this winds it up a notch. I've seen AI cars battle at the Monaco hairpin, exchanging clean passes and blocking, and it was absolutely brilliant.

Obviously, its competitors are always evolving and getting updated too, but as it stands I'd argue rFactor 2 has the best AI and feature set of any sim. In terms of content, things are steadily improving, but its rivals have a bit of an edge here. Do note that some major mods like DRM and Enduracers are making its way to RF2, so that might spark a new surge in the modding scene.

In conclusion, rFactor 2 does a lot right. If you have the setup, and the willingness to fiddle around a bit with configuration, then you'll be rewarded with an unique, and extremely rewarding, experience. And if you're on the fence, there's a pretty decent demo available here.

GRAB_004.JPG


Full disclosure: ISI has very kindly provided us with review codes for the game and pre-release access to the Stock Cars. I also haven't had the chance to test the netcode, as I've been having unrelated connection problems.
 
Last edited:
With my Thrustmaster TX i had to increase the ffb-factor quite a bit (1.5 to 2.9 depending on the car)
Caster too has a BIG impact on FFB. It increases the geometric/mechanical advantage that torque at the road wheel has on the steering rack. Set-up wise it also increases the camber as you turn the wheel. So you have less camber when you brake (nice) more camber when you steer (nice) and more FFB. I guess there is a limit though.
Edit: This chopper photo explains how more caster (rake) mens more camber when u turn the wheel.
Chopper.JPG

Now a trolley wheel with little caster
Trolley wheel.jpg

and now a trolley wheel optimised for more stabilty with some caster
trolly-wheel-more caster.jpg

apologies guys, I always hijack threads to talk about set up.
 
Last edited:
ISI team, must think in the modding community. They must develop new tools and plugins...
It's inconceivable to have tools from programs of six years ago ....
3ds MAX plugins works with too old versions....why not blender or other tools?
 
You may be happy to drive around in other simulators because you could not find what you wanted in rF2... all good. However, there is no way in hell you could convince anyone that AC or PCars is even in the same world as rF2.

Here you go again... It doesn't really make any sense to read your posts if your only way of making rf2 look good is to make others look bad...

I'd guess it is already weird you put ac and pcars in the same category so I should have probably reading there already...

Yet we hear the same story over and over from the uninitiated, the inexperienced and it feels like trying to hold back the tide.
Ah the hidden personal attacks. Only the uninitiated and unexperienced would dare to criticize rf2. No true scotsman and so forth... How many decades of simming does it take to become... real simracer?

This is just surreal thread.
 
Here you go again... It doesn't really make any sense to read your posts if your only way of making rf2 look good is to make others look bad...

I'd guess it is already weird you put ac and pcars in the same category so I should have probably reading there already...


Ah the hidden personal attacks. Only the uninitiated and unexperienced would dare to criticize rf2. No true scotsman and so forth... How many decades of simming does it take to become... real simracer?

This is just surreal thread.

Ok, the only reason they were mentioned, is that I was responding to them being mentioned.
And yes, I consider other simulators and games to be inferior to rF2, so of course they are in the same category to me.

It's not my only way at all. I have written many posts on multiple forums detailing my experiences.
If you only hang out here, I could see why you might get that impression.

Take the comments personally if you like... Maybe I could word some things better, but do you really not understand that most people do not know what they are talking about.

It's absolutely no skin off my nose who the hell does what. I race offline just as much as on. If nobody else in the world played it and I'd still be happy for life. It's just that I'm an older guy, with lot's of life experience and lot's of sim racing experience, a fair bit of karting experience, and lot's of modding experience and am competitive as hell.

I was modding Geoff's F1GP back in 1991, simulating wet weather grip levels and replicating the skins and driver names for that season. It doesn't take decades to be a true sim racer, but much like children, younger folk(sim racing age) don't often know what is good for them. Younger folk(real age) also tend to have far less patience, problem solving and common sense... in my experience, as an IT trainer of over 30 young adults over a decade.

This stuff is not me puffing out my chest, simply relaying to you, that maybe I have some stuff worth listening to, that is all.
 
but do you really not understand that most people do not know what they are talking about.
Most people don't even know that they have no idea what they are talking about. But that still doesn't make their opinion meaningless. Surely you understand that if you start to rate the feedback based on the person who gives it instead of the feedback itself you have created something that doesn't improve the product but only exxaggerates the image some of the most hardcore posters have about their own knowledge?

Anyways when reading your posts the impression I'm getting is that there is almost some kind of dislike or disapproval not just towards the other sims but what they represent. It makes your posts come of as confrontational. If you think that rf2 is the best sim today it doesn't really become true if the only way to explain that is to badmouth every other sim...
 
You may be right. I dislike games that pretend to be sims and sims that appeal only to common denominators. I love games and have a massive steam library, I have every major sim and try to use them regularly.

But more than a gamer, I'm a racer that could never really afford it. Doing karting after being a sim racer for 3 years was a highlight of my life. The smells... the sore muscles, the broken steering rods and seized pistons.

The grip and loss of it, bogging down out of the hairpin, spits of rain and tyre pressures are too low, sliding all over the place, remembering we tightened the side pods... Now we must slide the kart, generating more heat and pressure, sideways through the turns, side by side down the back straight, he goes deep, I tuck in... Up the hill and into the final chicane... He hits the breaks for the turn, I don't... Pinching the kerb on the left just so the steering grabs ever so slightly the the same on the right, running out the the edge, front wheel in the edge, rear still half on track, he crosses the line.

Every single time I jump into rF2 I am reminded of those days. I am not when driving other things.

I will try to be less condescending but I know I'm an arse and it's not that easy ;)
 
No probs Mat, there are a number of assumptions built into your answer but that's ok. No I don't prefer pCars for the reasons you mentioned including that I couldn't find what I like and that I was uninitiated in rF2. I raced rF2 for many hours and I am not a novice, I have had track time in the real & virtual worlds since the late 70's. Being an 80's gamer I can assure you graphics are not the criteria for a great sim racer to me. I would never try to convince anyone that my preferred race title was the benchmark sim racer because there isn't one, its all subjective opinion. For my money pCars at this point in time ticks most of the boxes that I enjoy as the most realistic interpretation of racing - for me, the tire model is good, the handling is realistic and the tracks feel immersive. It becomes a circular argument though and I posted here because of frustration I have felt at rF2 and its development. I definitely did not intend to bicker with anyone over it. Have fun, keep racing :)
 
There is absolutely no reason to be apologetic about only wanting to spend time on top quality products. I'm the same way.

I don't go around kidding myself, and I don't buy into that whole "every sim is equally good, just in different ways" nonsense that so many are spouting these days. Reality is reality. Either a title does a good job at simulating reality or it doesn't.

I don't have the time nor the inclination to waste my time on products I don't feel are top notch. That's one side of it... if I'm then presented with factual and objective evidence that shows that one sim does a better job at something than the other sim, I won't hesitate to choose the better sim.

And no, I'm not missing out on anything because I spend 95 percent of my racing time in rF2. I've given every single current sim more than a fair chance. None of them have won me over in the same way rF2 has. So what exactly am I missing? Not a whole lot.
 
In my opinion rF2 has the best FFB and Physics but lacks the great quality tracks where Indycar and FIA-GT3 do their season races! These are two of the series that i'am most interested in racing but also very interested in the Endurance series which i read that Enduroracers are working on.

The lack of quality content is no doubt one of the reasons that multiplayer is a ghost town but hopefully this will start to change after ISI brings us Nascar plus additional car series/tracks etc.
 
Last edited:
You are right but AC is a finished product unlike rf2....
That's a major contradiction and misinformation. How can you say that I'm right while at the same time implying that AC is more finished than rF2?
In actuality, rF2 was more finished years ago than AC is right now. AC is a pre-alpha product with a post 1.0 label slapped on.
 
Last edited:
FFB: lot of guys forget to adjust the "car specific FFB multiplier", that has a pretty big impact on the FFB feel per car (per skin). Start with loading up the rf2pedaloverlay plugin and if you are clipping too much in a high speed sweeper then lower the setting, if the FFB feels weak, increase it until in a big sweeper it's almost clipping but not. This is a huge deal but I guess 99% of players don't even know what's this option.

content: my biggest problem is with the tracks.
First of all we have almost every single European tracks but with varying quality. In the recent weeks I have been experimenting with different mods (tracks) and I found what I was looking for (except for Brands Hatch, Zandvoort, Zolder).

However the NA tracks are almost non-existent in the game or if you find one it's basically a low quality release.
To name a few tracks we would need: Daytona, Long Beach, Laguna Seca, Belle Isle, Watkins Glen, Mosport, Road America, VIR, Road Atlanta. Not mentioning the Indycar tracks. And of course soon comes the Stock Car but we have 2 or 3 tracks to race on?

Cars: I don't think we have a problem here. We have GT3 pack, GTE pack, F1 cars from different eras etc. The only thing I miss is a WTCC pack.

edit: btw I have an idea why so many say this game looks bad, it's from 2005, etc. Because the trees and the grass looks awful on almost every single track. Either too dark green or light green, 99% of the time completely unnatural.
 
Last edited:
edit: btw I have an idea why so many say this game looks bad, it's from 2005, etc. Because the trees and the grass looks awful on almost every single track. Either too dark green or light green, 99% of the time completely unnatural.

Are you implying modded tracks, because many people seem to judge how rF2 looks based on modded content, but yet they don't do it for other games. Since around spring when ISI updated the graphics engine, I haven't seen any more of the too green or too saturated stuff, all colors are natural.
 
Are you implying modded tracks, because many people seem to judge how rF2 looks based on modded content, but yet they don't do it for other games. Since around spring when ISI updated the graphics engine, I haven't seen any more of the too green or too saturated stuff, all colors are natural.
Honestly it doesn't matter. I only know one track with nice tree textures, the Nordschleife. Probably there are more but this came to my mind at first.

I've just tried after a long time the ISI Lime Rock Park and the trees look terrible. Malaysia somewhat better but still that kind of green color is just bad.

Btw I realized this thing (that the trees and the grass make this game ugly) when I tried the Lester track for the first time. I was saying to myself "wow this looks awesome" and there you go, there are no trees/grass on that track, no nasty green textures.

edit: another thing is the grass is flat...
edit2: Putnam Park and Croft are also nice looking. I don't want to try every single track so lets just say the Nordschleife-quality trees should be the standard imo
 
Last edited:
Honestly it doesn't matter. I only know one track with nice tree textures, the Nordschleife. Probably there are more but this came to my mind at first.

I've just tried after a long time the ISI Lime Rock Park and the trees look terrible. Malaysia somewhat better but still that kind of green color is just bad.

Btw I realized this thing (that the trees and the grass make this game ugly) when I tried the Lester track for the first time. I was saying to myself "wow this looks awesome" and there you go, there are no trees/grass on that track, no nasty green textures.

edit: another thing is the grass is flat...
edit2: Putnam Park and Croft are also nice looking. I don't want to try every single track so lets just say the Nordschleife-quality trees should be the standard imo

I have to take in mind that most modders do this as their hobby. And they may have other priorities when they make their tracks.

Its always easy to shout for top quality when you dont know how much work it is. And maybe to modders are happy with the result they achieved. Maybe they also are missing the skill to do it better or just used the track they made to learn something. So if only 1% of the released track are in a good quality you can be happy. But this is always the case in any game were anybody can create mods. Thats how it is and we need to deal with it or we need to create top quality track by our own ;)
 
edit: another thing is the grass is flat...
edit2: Putnam Park and Croft are also nice looking. I don't want to try every single track so lets just say the Nordschleife-quality trees should be the standard imo

Lime Rock Park colors are a bit bleh indeed, but as you said Nordschleife trees are good, so it's not a game problem then but fault (or conscious decision) by track artist (ISI has only two artists who build tracks). I know that not having 3D grass is deliberate decision by ISI artists, they think it looks bad.
 

Latest News

How long have you been simracing

  • < 1 year

    Votes: 245 15.0%
  • < 2 years

    Votes: 166 10.2%
  • < 3 years

    Votes: 161 9.8%
  • < 4 years

    Votes: 122 7.5%
  • < 5 years

    Votes: 228 13.9%
  • < 10 years

    Votes: 195 11.9%
  • < 15 years

    Votes: 125 7.6%
  • < 20 years

    Votes: 93 5.7%
  • < 25 years

    Votes: 76 4.6%
  • Ok, I am a dinosaur

    Votes: 224 13.7%
Back
Top