rFactor 2 Update 21/05/2018 Released

[Paul Jeffrey]

Studio 397 have released a little update to rFactor 2 earlier today, addressing some minor aspects of the PC exclusive racing simulation.

Dropping in slightly under the radar and without much fanfare, this new update to the venerable rFactor 2 racing simulation appears to be mostly aimed at general housekeeping duties, without adding any significant changes to the base install.

Short on headlines, the key takeaway from todays build appears to be more focussed on improvements and fixes with modding in mind, of which no doubt the fix for crashes in viewer and wireframe modes will be most welcomed by those intrepid individuals responsible for developing community created content...

Steam Build ID 2788780

Changelog

• Fixes for viewer using placeholder textures and not printing warning dialog
  
• Fixed crash with viewer and wireframe modes
  
• Fix for output log being too verbose
  
• Some minor fixes / internal improvements
  
• Fixed an error in MAS2.exe when packing tracks with large MAS files.

Screenshot credit: philmcqueen

rFactor 2 is available exclusively for PC from Steam now.

Check out the rFactor 2 sub forum here at RaceDepartment for all the latest news and discussion with regards to the simulation. You can take part in lively debates with fellow rFactor 2 fans and take part in some great Club and League racing events..! Head over to the forum now!

Like what you see here at RaceDepartment? Don't forget to like, subscribe and follow us on social media!

RaceDepartment YouTube
RaceDepartment Twitter
RaceDepartment Facebook
RaceDepartment Twitch
RaceDepartment Instagram

Let us know your impressions of the new build below!

 

[Ghoults]

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner!

It's all about polygon count. Amazing how few people notice the polygon differences between models.

And before someone says "but AC can...", remember that AC doesn't support rain or dirt layers or dynamic track and uses far fewer details on their track models.

Can't you discus anything without flaming other sims? Your post is like whataboutism abc.

The surface you drive on... On ac and basically in any other sim you can drive on much more dense polygon surfaces whereas rf2 road surface is more of a pre 2008 tech (iracing came out in 2008 with laser scanned surfaces so that's where the year number comes from) technology in terms of physical accuracy. Although rf2 track mesh probably maybe is more dense than sims had in 2008... Hard to find screenshots although what I remember from working on rf1 tracks is that the mesh density was similar what I've seen in rf2 wireframes.

I always wondered why is ISI not doing laser scanned tracks in rf2 but relies on their own magical methods and tools (they never explained what those were which was also suspicious). Always felt a bit fishy me to me but I just assumed they simply did not have money to laser scan tracks or buy any scans and did not want to say it aloud. Turns out they can't because their engine literally can not use dense laser scanned meshes because of realroad needs a low density mesh. Same reason they struggle with fps because the road mesh is too dense for graphics but not dense enough for driving. It has realroad though which is nice-ish. Too bad it is pretty raw choice.

I really really hope s397 is working on this. Making the realroad compatible with separate laserscan accurate driving mesh and low density graphics meshes is massively important for every reason you can imagine. Things that should come out of that is better fps, better graphics and better and more accurate road surfaces that work with realroad. It would even help with fps for all those tracks they don't have laserscan data. And would drive better as well.

See here: https://www.racedepartment.com/thre...3-sebring-and-more.147867/page-2#post-2697100

 

[Emery]

Can't you discus anything without flaming other sims?

Sorry you feel that I've slighted another sim. I was only comparing visual polygon count and fps.

I agree that AC's style of physical road mesh is superior for driving feel. However, there is a drawback to using a separate visual mesh from the physical mesh for ground surfaces and that is wheels will occasionally fall through the visual to hit the physical (or float above it).

The two visual graphic engine styles have two different targets. AC's is designed to present the most pretty cars and provide the best physical feel at a loss for trackside visual detail and a closed driving environment (always locked inbounds by invisible walls) that has limited lighting challenges. I'm not knocking it, just mentioning the differences.

 

[Pappa_G_27]

14 (and counting!) people disagree with this hmm... I thought you people used to love rF2. Really... what's happening here, on RD, first alcoholism (in gRally thread) and now all these rF2 haters. Maybe it's all connected ...somehow.

Nope, i love alcohol and love Rf2.

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

I always wondered why is ISI not doing laser scanned tracks in rf2 but relies on their own magical methods and tools (they never explained what those were which was also suspicious). Always felt a bit fishy me to me but I just assumed they simply did not have money to laser scan tracks or buy any scans and did not want to say it aloud. Turns out they can't because their engine literally can not use dense laser scanned meshes because of realroad needs a low density mesh. Same reason they struggle with fps because the road mesh is too dense for graphics but not dense enough for driving. It has realroad though which is nice-ish. Too bad it is pretty raw choice.

Well that's factually wrong that they can't, since S397 is working at the very moment on delivering a laser-scanned Sebring.

@Andrew Harper Thanks for the detailed response.

Perhaps the S397 approach could be 'optimised' for better overall performance; I've found the S397 add-ons are the most resource hungry when compared with the ISI made cars and the URD mods already mentioned. I agree the interiors of the GT3 cars are sublime.

I'd never call S397 lazy as their DX11 re-write was a major undertaking!

Most of the times they don't build the car models from scratch. For example S397 McLaren GT3 and Assetto Corsa McLaren GT3 model are more or less identical, so they have sourced it from somewhere. If the car doesn't run as well, it's usually due to higher polycount or more complex materials & shaders. The URD models are several years old so presumably they are much less complex.

 

[MPortnoy]

I unstall the whole game a few months back.
Although a great game,
Really... what's happening here, on RD, first alcoholism

So it's a great game but you uninstalled it?? Speak of contradictions and alcoholism.

 

[Ghoults]

Well that's factually wrong that they can't, since S397 is working at the very moment on delivering a laser-scanned Sebring.

It is factually the reality as of now. Go and open the latest zandvoort in 3dsimed and see what the mesh is like. Or wait and see what kind of mesh they have with sebring. I'd like to see it actually too. Proving me wrong with evidence should be the easiest thing in the world. Open any track with dense driving physical mesh in 3dsimed and post some screenshots. If I'm wrong then show me the evidence. I'm fairly sure 0 of the rf2 tracks have accurate road surface mesh and if there is one then it surely can't use realroad.

Sorry you feel that I've slighted another sim. I was only comparing visual polygon count and fps.

Nah you went full-on whataboutism when some other sim had something yours did not.

I agree that AC's style of physical road mesh is superior for driving feel. However, there is a drawback to using a separate visual mesh from the physical mesh for ground surfaces and that is wheels will occasionally fall through the visual to hit the physical (or float above it).

The two visual graphic engine styles have two different targets. AC's is designed to present the most pretty cars and provide the best physical feel at a loss for trackside visual detail and a closed driving environment (always locked inbounds by invisible walls) that has limited lighting challenges. I'm not knocking it, just mentioning the differences.

Criticize rf2 and you go on about fault of other games. A mistake in other game fixes or justifies issues in rf2? I thought this was rf2 forum. Not "but ac doesn't do x" forum.

 

[Emery]

Or wait and see what kind of mesh they have with sebring. I'd like to see it actually too.

Marcel gave us a sneak peak of the Sebring hairpin mesh overlaid on the point cloud during his "Racing into the future! - Marcel Offermans [Luminis DevCon 2018]" on YouTube. Whether it's the final mesh or not remains to be seen.

 

[Ghoults]

Whether it's the final mesh or not remains to be seen.

Yes.

No idea what you are "disagreeing" with though.

 

[tonio duran]

Any new patch is appreciated for sure
(while anxiously waiting for the new interface)

I HAVE IT ON THE FIRST DAY AND RSO OF UPDATE IN RFACTOR 2 DO NOT KNOW THAT IT IS THIS TOPIC RETURNS CRAZY AND IT IS AN ANTIQUE SIM AND MORE UPDATES WITHOUT SEEING WHAT THEY DO TRUTH

 

[mrbungle83]

Really?

You suspect?

I really wish that people wouldn't use every thread to bash the sim concerned. Try not to be so negative, please. If you don't like a given sim, play something you do like. Then you can go to the correct forum and say something positive.
Of course you can voice an opinion, but your comments above don't seem relevant to this thread (IMHO).
Happy, happy, smiley faces.
No offence, have a nice day.

Why does everything have to be positive? Thats boring imagine what crap we would be dealing with now if all we did was say well done.

 

[mrbungle83]

So it's a great game but you uninstalled it?? Speak of contradictions and alcoholism.

Apparently talking about the price of a pint makes you an alcoholic, and uninstalling a 100 year old relic means you never loved it. Logic.

 

[Denis Betty]

Why does everything have to be positive? Thats boring imagine what crap we would be dealing with now if all we did was say well done.

If you have a legitimate beef, back it up with facts and do it in the appropriate thread. Imagine the crap if people just jumped into any old thread and started spouting spurious, unsubstantiated incorrect, negative info about anything they liked.... Oh wait....

 

[mrbungle83]

Oh my God, Chaos! I tell thee, Chaos!