Inmersive Filter - ACC style + SOL + RESHADE [Photorealism]

Misc Inmersive Filter - ACC style + SOL + RESHADE [Photorealism] v13

Login or Register an account to download this content
Hmm... i don't know where the problem is starting to be honest, i was able before (in CSP 1.56 or so) to take x2 or x3 pics with reshade enable and no problem, without using sharpening and using FXAA/SMAA (you can reset settings to default if you want or make it stronger-weaker in the settings of the effect in reshade btw) maybe there is something to modify on Nice_Screenshot in CM to fix this temporaly or permanent, you can also check ExtraFX motionBlur+TAA, as the Temporal AntiAliasing only works when MotionBlur is enable and it'll smooth the edges as well
Well, it looks I got it working again, but there's no logic to this really...
First I re-enabled FXAA in the video settings, and verified that I can get x2 pics again. All nice and good, except reshade effect of course.
Next, I disabled FXAA and started a new session. Surprisingly, x2 pics still worked, and after disabling qUINT_sharp.fx the artifacts are so faint that I have to look for them. Although I have to confess, sharpening also added something extra that I kinda miss. Maybe I'll find something else in the shaders, film grain sounds good - or enable sharpening but not sharpen as much.

I just reeally hope that it keeps working now.

And once more, thank you! Great filter, even greater support :thumbsup:
 
I'd like to check whether my depth buffer is what it should be.

Here an image of BMW M235i Racing @ Magione, date set at 17.7.2020 and time 10:00 am:
20200717-235819-Magione-BMW M235i Racing.jpg


Now here's the depth buffer debug image of the same scene:
20200717-235906-Magione-BMW M235i Racing.jpg


That depth buffer is nowhere near the example you have in your installation package, and the actual image has way softer shadows - for example the inside of the pit wall, the walkway with the starting lights.
Is this how it should actually look, or is there something wrong with my settings somewhere?
Also, switching MXAO off does seem to have only a very minimal effect on the glare on sidewindows, and some very subtle shading difference at the guy in the background (but having played with AO on ETS2 and ATS, this is no surprise).
 

Attachments

  • 20200717-235819-Magione-BMW M235i Racing.jpg
    20200717-235819-Magione-BMW M235i Racing.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 163
  • 20200717-235906-Magione-BMW M235i Racing.jpg
    20200717-235906-Magione-BMW M235i Racing.jpg
    157.8 KB · Views: 168
Last edited:
I'd like to check whether my depth buffer is what it should be.

Here an image of BMW M235i Racing @ Magione, date set at 17.7.2020 and time 10:00 am:
View attachment 389537

Now here's the depth buffer debug image of the same scene:
View attachment 389538

That depth buffer is nowhere near the example you have in your installation package, and the actual image has way softer shadows - for example the inside of the pit wall, the walkway with the starting lights.
Is this how it should actually look, or is there something wrong with my settings somewhere?
Also, switching MXAO off does seem to have only a very minimal effect on the glare on sidewindows, and some very subtle shading difference at the guy in the background (but having played with AO on ETS2 and ATS, this is no surprise).
Maybe the BIAS/Strenght/or even the render distance of the mxao/rtgi effects are set to low for your resolution and this is causing it to be smooth and fade away, in MXAO you can maximize the sharpen by raising resolution from 0.500 to 1.000 but the performance will drop at the same time, you can increase render distance at the bottom of the effect, you'll have something like 0.000 - 0.400
If the impact in visual is minimal this is because in this scene i'm looking that you have TwoLayers MXAO with only shadows detection (AO) not Light Bounce as far as i see, and i used to have LightBounce in a separated layer, to check if this is enable you can see at the bottom of MXAO effect the Mxao_IL = 1 / 0 (should be 1) and Bias set to -0.100 as minimum (manually), other than this, maybe mxao received an update i didn't saw yet, i'll finish a work in other game today and i'll try to open AC and check this version again with mxao only and DeptHBuffer
 
Maybe the BIAS/Strenght/or even the render distance of the mxao/rtgi effects are set to low for your resolution and this is causing it to be smooth and fade away, in MXAO you can maximize the sharpen by raising resolution from 0.500 to 1.000 but the performance will drop at the same time, you can increase render distance at the bottom of the effect, you'll have something like 0.000 - 0.400
If the impact in visual is minimal this is because in this scene i'm looking that you have TwoLayers MXAO with only shadows detection (AO) not Light Bounce as far as i see, and i used to have LightBounce in a separated layer, to check if this is enable you can see at the bottom of MXAO effect the Mxao_IL = 1 / 0 (should be 1) and Bias set to -0.100 as minimum (manually), other than this, maybe mxao received an update i didn't saw yet, i'll finish a work in other game today and i'll try to open AC and check this version again with mxao only and DeptHBuffer
Checked everything you mentioned, and only increasing the distance (fade out end) from 0.400 to 1.000 had some effect, but quite minimal. MXAO_ENABLE_IL was already set at 1, and normal bias was at -0.100.

I still like what I'm seeing, at least when the weather conditions are good, but I can't help feeling that maybe I should be seeing even more.

EDIT: I also checked the Statistics tab, and V__MXAO_DepthTex was just a red screen. Is that normal?
 
Last edited:
Checked everything you mentioned, and only increasing the distance (fade out end) from 0.400 to 1.000 had some effect, but quite minimal. MXAO_ENABLE_IL was already set at 1, and normal bias was at -0.100.

I still like what I'm seeing, at least when the weather conditions are good, but I can't help feeling that maybe I should be seeing even more.

EDIT: I also checked the Statistics tab, and V__MXAO_DepthTex was just a red screen. Is that normal?
well sometimes it appear red when using MXAO 2 layers, as i did because it have to overlap the SSAO with HDAO+ so yeah, that's quite common while using 2 layers
 
i don't know why,all my setting is right but my graphic is look like that,sky is dark and gray, reflection is wierd
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpg
    Untitled.jpg
    798.5 KB · Views: 455
i don't know why,all my setting is right but my graphic is look like that,sky is dark and gray, reflection is wierd
If you're using Reshade version, disable RTGI and check if the bright areas still there, if you're using non-reshade version, go to ExtraFX in CM and lower the strenght/intensity of SSGI, that was recently modified, from 400-500% to 150-250% and try again, also check the Exposure to be set at 100% (or lower if you need to decrease it to your comfort) in-game while pressing PageUp/Down keys
 
i don't know why,all my setting is right but my graphic is look like that,sky is dark and gray, reflection is wierd
For many tracks the default MAX value of AUTO_EXPOSURE is way too high, especially from the cockpit view. Black Cat County is one of them (your first screenshot). I got fed up with the constant fiddling with PageUp/Down, and decided to set the MAX value lower in the filter's ini-file. Default value is 0.75, and I have it set at 0.55 now.
 
If you're using Reshade version, disable RTGI and check if the bright areas still there, if you're using non-reshade version, go to ExtraFX in CM and lower the strenght/intensity of SSGI, that was recently modified, from 400-500% to 150-250% and try again, also check the Exposure to be set at 100% (or lower if you need to decrease it to your comfort) in-game while pressing PageUp/Down keys
I changed a lot of my csp setting and now it's works , but still have some track is not good looking but great work for this filter, thank you
 
For many tracks the default MAX value of AUTO_EXPOSURE is way too high, especially from the cockpit view. Black Cat County is one of them (your first screenshot). I got fed up with the constant fiddling with PageUp/Down, and decided to set the MAX value lower in the filter's ini-file. Default value is 0.75, and I have it set at 0.55 now.
your right ,some track's exposure is wierd so i need to change the exposure every time
 
your right ,some track's exposure is wierd so i need to change the exposure every time
For many tracks the default MAX value of AUTO_EXPOSURE is way too high, especially from the cockpit view. Black Cat County is one of them (your first screenshot). I got fed up with the constant fiddling with PageUp/Down, and decided to set the MAX value lower in the filter's ini-file. Default value is 0.75, and I have it set at 0.55 now.
I see, thanks you both for the feedback, DXCH in case you want, you can do what Mikke did, you can edit the ppfilter .ini file and set the MAX=0.75 auto-exposure to a lower ammount ,sorry about this issue, funny that actually i think the same yesterday and lowered it to 0.55 max from now on (for further update).
Thanks for the feedback once again and sorry about this issue
 
el_mattpro updated Inmersive Filter - ACC style + SOL + RESHADE [Photorealism] with a new update entry:

Inmersive Filter v13

Hello everyone, finally the v13 is here!, compatible with latest sol updates 1.5.x / 1.6.0 / 1.6.1 and so on. Sorry for the late, i'm on the middle of some studying so i have to go off Assetto Corsa for quite long time and this is making my work to be slower than usual, still i'm pretty sure that v13 will receive a -Hotfix version one of these weeks as there are a few stuff i'll like to add or slighty correct for better looking overall.
Also this filter was made for a good looking on the...

Read the rest of this update entry...
 
The colors are now definitely closer to non-reshade filter, that is true. Sunny days now look like cloudy days, just like they did with non-reshade filter. That was the reason for me to switch to reshade, but I guess it didn't really pay off then... Try optimal settings at Vallelunga (clear day at 12:00), does not like look like a clear day.

EDIT: But no problem, I went back to v12 and everything looks much better again.
 
Last edited:
The colors are now definitely closer to non-reshade filter, that is true. Sunny days now look like cloudy days, just like they did with non-reshade filter. That was the reason for me to switch to reshade, but I guess it didn't really pay off then... Try optimal settings at Vallelunga (clear day at 12:00), does not like look like a clear day.

EDIT: But no problem, I went back to v12 and everything looks much better again.
Hello Mikke, sorry but with "looks like cloudy days" what do you mean? does your game disable the Directional shadows making the scene to look like Overcast ambient light (without contact-directional shadows?). Thanks for the review, i'll take a look in a few minutes to latest sol version using Clear preset with Non-Reshade version at vallelunga 12:00 and i'll try to see where is the problem located or what is caused it.
 
Hello Mikke, sorry but with "looks like cloudy days" what do you mean? does your game disable the Directional shadows making the scene to look like Overcast ambient light (without contact-directional shadows?). Thanks for the review, i'll take a look in a few minutes to latest sol version using Clear preset with Non-Reshade version at vallelunga 12:00 and i'll try to see where is the problem located or what is caused it.
I just mean that the general ambience is not that of a clear day, everything looks too dreary.
I didn't test with other tracks, but with non-reshade v12 Vallelunga was the worst offender, other tracks looked much better.
 
Might be just me or my monitor settings, but at the moment I prefer v12:View attachment 394759

And this is with v13:
View attachment 394761
Well looking at the screens i can understand what you mean with the ambient look, but actually the v13 is way more "Sol Default values" friendly than v12 in terms of ambient light and environment lighting, as i don't know how the next versions of Sol will change the values of the ambient, i can't tell you to directly modify all over to your taste because the effort will be useless after a Sol update, for the meanwhile you can increase contrast and raise Exposure to around 120%+ to match the v12 contrast a bit, otherwise as you're doing simply keep with the version that fits to your taste/monitor settings, etc. As far as you enjoy it while playing, that is the important thing beside the look overall :)
Thanks once again for the screen comparison and feedback
 
Is anyone experiencing their colors of their game being super faded out in V13? These are the exact same settings in each shot.
Edit: Here are my settings.
Well that doesn't look correct, the sky should be a bit "faded" and desaturated than before, but the rest should be almost the same with different lighting in terms of saturation, if Reset Sol settings / switch between ppfilters and reset weather OR select v13 from the launcher and start the session with v13, don't solve the issue and you want to go for a "quick fix", you can Increase saturation in real time with Ctrl+Shift+ "+ numpad" until it match your taste, also the v13 pic you show is really overexposed, something that should be actually the opposite, check if your Sol Config app have "ae_auto-exposure" disable (it should be disable for AE ppfilter to work), set ppfilter brightness (in sol config) to 100 or 90 and then set your game Auto Exposure to 100% that is the default value, with PageUp/PageDown in real time while in-game. If the auto exposure still failing and overexpose the image onboard and outside the car, then there is something wrong with the ppfilter o the .lua in your setup, check if lowering exposure works in real time with PageDown key, it should go at least until 50%
 

Latest News

Online or Offline racing?

  • 100% online racing

    Votes: 96 7.8%
  • 75% online 25% offline

    Votes: 130 10.5%
  • 50% online 50% offline

    Votes: 175 14.2%
  • 25% online 75% offline

    Votes: 348 28.2%
  • 100% offline racing

    Votes: 480 38.9%
  • Something else, explain in comment

    Votes: 5 0.4%
Back
Top