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Some circuits are clearly simpler and outdated, but the developers are currently working on revamping the older tracks in the roster, as well as updating the cars - which brings me to the meatier stuff: the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:
@Bela Valko

What ingame AA level are you using?

Because the trees of Croft, Putnam park and Poznan aren't optimized with the new AA levels from rF2. :barefoot:
The trees of Coft look good with a low AA level.
But the trees of ISI tracks are much better with a higher AA level. :)

Atlanta Motorsport Park is the current standard. Trees and
surroundings looks good without blur, bloom etc...
 
Last edited:
Simon Christmann and John-Eric Saxén: I'm not talking against the modders because they use the same trees as ISI, I don't know anything about track creation but it looks like almost everybody uses the same tree textures ISI provided them (the same "tree-kit" if this is how you say in English) and those textures, mainly their color look bad, that's all.

Ace King: I don't care about 3D grass, I was mainly talking about the colors and about those who says the game is from 2005.

Gijs van Elderen: I have everything maxed out _in game_ but the tree colors are not graphics settings dependent anyway I think. AMP is a step forward but not everywhere (in the last big left hander they look OK). The leaves have different shades of green so the tree shouldn't look like a big green patch.

AMP http://kepfeltoltes.hu/150809/amp_trees_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png
vs Nord http://kepfeltoltes.hu/150809/nord_trees_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.png

Btw this is just my opinion, this is why I think most think the game look bad but it could be something completely different thing.
 
Trees in your screen shot doesn't look to good at AMP.
And i can imagine that it's worse on track with less details. :(
I have every option at max, max FSAA and FXAA on, HDR on, this is how it looks like. The only difference between your picture and my picture is the edges around the trees, how can I make it look like that?
Btw the colors are the same so in the end it doesn't matter much.
 
A few builds ago ISI made new AA levels for rF2 and optimized for your graphics card. Some have more levels of AA some less. It depends on your graphics card.

- Use the default Nvidea/AMD profile for the game...
- Don't adjust things in the player.json. or graphic.ini
- If you have forced AA or changed things in the player.json or graphic.ini, You can't revert the settings back without a clean-up. ==> http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/rf2-graphic-bugs-things-to-check-first.106607/

Just use the default AA levels of rF2 in the graphics setup. :)

What ingame AA level are you using?
That's why i asked. :whistling: I use level 6 (level 8 is maximum for me)
The vegetation type, colors and density... might be a personal preference.
But trees should look like trees (as much as possible) Not like billboards.
 
For me the largest downsides of rF2:
Lack of licensed content
Ghostown in MP
Bad graphics

Saying bad graphics,I don't mean bad 3d models, textures or lack of eyecandy. For me the issue is colors/contrast/lightning. Even after HDR update picture still looks like overexposed, undersatured, low contrast and I am using calibrated screen.
First time I loaded rF2 demo I couldn't even separate which textures are actual track and which ones are sideways.

Any suggestions regarding injectors?
 
Last edited:
Everything after HDR update looks natural to me. The issue that plagued rF2 for years was oversaturation, now it's finally sorted. I think there is some injector called SweetFX, but I don't recommend it because ISI artists work on balancing tracks textures for default HDR, not for custom one.

B906-cockpit.jpg

build946.jpg
 
Maybe natural if you take bland British weather as an example and make it permanent in rF2(although sky looks overexposed for that).
Normally during summer, spring or early autumn my eys provide more colorful, higher contrast and higher dynamic range picture. Early evenings when sunny can look exceptionally nice and shiny everythere.
I just don't want to have depressive graphics.
 
Very happy with RF2 graphics here.

Each to their own and its not a judgement, just an observation that there are two tribes: The Graphics Tribe and the Physics tribe. If I can feel the mass of the car moving around through my hands I'm happy.
The second video below was me driving, after that session I was elated, sweating. It felt real.


There will always be people who like the super glossy graphics that some games have. Personally I find them a bit "Disneyland".
For me RF2 is very close to what real life is and totally immersive.
This video is a nice example of what real life looks like.
I don't want it glossier or sharper than real life.
Edit: The driver is the late Sean Edwards, passionate sim racer at Race Department and proper real life racer. RIP Sean.

This one is at the Ring (with very modest graphic settings) in RF2
 
Last edited:
Nice couple of vids there David.What strikes me the most,is the massive amount of grip that the Sean Edwards 997 is producing.I'm glad the general trend in sims,is towards more grip these days.And yes,for me also physics is king.I don't need all the shiny stuff,just let me feel the car.In rf2,you can feel the car in every possible way,and every car feels different.Rf2 has it's own style any way,it's got a grungy petrol and oil soaked look to me.You can almost smell motorsport just by it's look.:)
 
No need to make these extremities with graphics vs physics tribes. I want both, while physics of course is high priority. Asking for realistic colours and lightning isn't too much. Also some optimization would be great, because it definitely doesn't look good considering the requirements. Implementaton of dx11 or maybe one day even dx12 could help a lot, I suspect there is high CPU overhead with dx9
IRL looks nicer than it is ingame.
 
Asking for realistic colours and lightning isn't too much.
Every sim's youtube video is recognizable. So no game at the moment has the "realistic colors and lighting". And there is nothing wrong with personal preferences. There are enough racing games out there to enjoy.

I suspect there is high CPU overhead with dx9
In my experience: 100 AI at the Nordschleife. No CPU overload. :) And i don't have a mega CPU.
 
However some titles allow to customize the colors/saturation/contrast and etc. For example AC without post process effects also looks quite bland, however with post processing enabled and appropriate-customized filter it looks much better and still natural (my opinion).
I am talking about CPU overhead (not overload) regarding graphics rendering (dx9), AI isn't a factor here.
Even sims like DCS (which I would say is like rF2 of flight sims) is moving to DX11, which is going to provide higher performance together with graphic improvements.
 
Last edited:
However some titles allow to customize the colors/saturation/contrast and etc. For example AC without post process effects also looks quite bland, however with post processing enabled and appropriate-customized filter it looks much better and still natural (my opinion).

Tip, You can adjust these things. ;)
Open rF2 in windowed mode and you can preview what you are adjusting and how it looks. :cool: Once you are happy. Open rF2 in full screen mode and have fun.

Schermafdruk 2015-08-13 13.16.26.png



I've read some discussions on the DX9, 10, 11 on the ISI forum: ISI claimed there is no benefit for them to upgrade at the moment. But DX12 (with windows10) might be an option in the future... :whistling:
 
This is very primitive way. Obviously you cant adjust HDR, lightning and other effects this way. SweetFX seems like a more appropriate way of adjusting the picture. Obviously starting movement to dx11 at this time doesn't make a lot sense. For example DCS started movement to dx11 quite a lot of time ago.
 
No need to make these extremities with graphics vs physics tribes. I want both, while physics of course is high priority. .
Well that is your opinion of course.
Do you know of any game where Both graphics and physics are 10/10?
If so please tell me.
I don't. That's why I say one has to chose their tribe. That's my opinion.
 

Latest News

Are you buying car setups?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top