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Some circuits are clearly simpler and outdated, but the developers are currently working on revamping the older tracks in the roster, as well as updating the cars - which brings me to the meatier stuff: the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:
Colors indeed looked like "Teletubbies". Now it looks like one step too much in another direction, but overall still better. I understand that this might be better with the screens that have boosted contrast/colors by default which is normally the case.
I am running single 1200p screen, no DSR, even set FXAA instead of AA for testing. I would expect no issues with such setup.

Both low contrast and colors can also be indicative of monitor calibration. I use IPS monitor which provides 99% of time the correct colors out of the box. Secondly, monitor gamma is often wrong on non-IPS monitors. It should be 2.2, but more often cheap monitor are set for something around 1.8, making the black contrast much worse. If you have problems seeing the corners I think this is your problem, I've never heard it reported before.
 
I am using calibrated S-IPS screen. Gamma ~2,20, 6700k white balance and low color deviantion.
Had to boost brightness while playing rF2 so I wouldn't need to smirk at the picture. But it depends on the track and time set.
Normally I am running ~120cd/m3

It seems that picture while being in the cockpit is underexposed, compared to menus or pit/settings screen.
 
Last edited:
Apparently you have reached the point where making fun and dropping personal attacks are the strongest arguments left.
No its not that at all.
Its that I find that trying to have a constructive or conclusive dialogue/argument with you is very unrewarding.
Bit like shouting at a sound deadening wall. Nothing comes back that makes any sense to me.
Your responses when you are pinned down on a specific argument (eg choice between physics and graphics) is to either go very wide (content, price, whether you have a real track day car etc) or to debate that the question is either a) Rhetorical or b) Not precise enough. Strange that it can be both but anyway.....
The last part got me laughing. The question of which sim offers equally good physics or graphics (since you shouldn't have to choose) is not precise enough for you?

You feel happy to respond to sincere attempts to help with phrases like...
"A solution to adjust colors in the driver was pretty much a joke if not insult (from my perspective)".

But when someone laughs at your joke it's a "personal attack".

I used two emoticons because I thought you suggestion was hilarious (not precise enough) and the other because I think you have an agenda to bash RF2. eg "I definitely don't think that graphics is the reason why RF2 isn't popular as other sim titles. There are plenty of other reasons".

People are trying to help you and you seem hell bent on not being helped.
I admire those that are taking your requests for help at face value.
So the emoticons were to save my breath.
 
Nothing comes back that makes any sense to me.
You steered my comment regarding graphics towards physics (and choice between the two). Which was expected outcome after me pointing out the opinion about bad graphics in rF2 forum.

It looks like you were initially biased to think of me as rF2 basher.
Also bias towards your „tribe“ perception on the situation adds up.
My "mix" up also adds up.
It could explain why nothing makes sense for you.

If pointing out drawbacks of the title qualifies as "bashing", then I might be basher of pretty much every sim I have tried.

Your responses when you are pinned down on a specific argument (eg choice between physics and graphics) is to either go very wide (content, price, whether you have a real track day car etc) or to debate that the question is either a) Rhetorical or b) Not precise enough. Strange that it can be both but anyway.....
You missed my point why it could be both but it doesn't really matter. Although I wasn't good here at expressing my self. Sorry.
It seems like you have a right to redirect my initial topic and include physics. Yet, I can't go wider/steer the topic.

The topic of physics vs graphics has been discussed to the death. Making conclusions is exactly what I didn't want. As I mentioned I prefer not to split things into a "tribes" hence my attempt to keep it “safe” and not choose the side.

The last part got me laughing. The question of which sim offers equally good physics or graphics (since you shouldn't have to choose) is not precise enough for you?
Despite my “funny” (I have not problem with that) remark regarding your question, I have provided my answer (which you wanted that much) but you didn't respond to it, yet you keep beating the dead horse regarding "laughing" part. From my perspective it looks like you just want to have fun of someone who doesn't agree with you.

You feel happy to respond to sincere attempts to help with phrases like...
"A solution to adjust colors in the driver was pretty much a joke if not insult (from my perspective)".
Your assumption about my emotional state is incorrect. Both the response and the chance that this might be the only option for adjusting graphics put me on the angry side.
I didn't say anything particularly bad about this response until you dig it deeper.

BTW pardon for the guy if his suggestion was sincere.

But when someone laughs at your joke it's a "personal attack".
Wrong.
Calling me a paid blogger or annoying was a personal attack, which wasn't laughing at my remark regarding your question.

I think you have an agenda to bash RF2. eg "I definitely don't think that graphics is the reason why RF2 isn't popular as other sim titles. There are plenty of other reasons".
Seems like like rF2 is perfect for you, lucky you.

While my opinion is that rF2 isn't perfect which is why there will be people choosing also other titles.
In fact I think that rF2 might be the most undervalued/underplayed sim in the market.

Its that I find that trying to have a constructive or conclusive dialogue/argument with you is very unrewarding.
Making wrong assumptions about me, dropping some personal attacks, having a laugh – I wouldn't call this particularly good attempt to have a constructive dialogue.
 
Last edited:
I am using calibrated S-IPS screen. Gamma ~2,20, 6700k white balance and low color deviantion.
Had to boost brightness while playing rF2 so I wouldn't need to smirk at the picture. But it depends on the track and time set.
Normally I am running ~120cd/m3

It seems that picture while being in the cockpit is underexposed, compared to menus or pit/settings screen.

They removed autexposure because it caused the overexposed color issue in cockpit, so now rF2 is using the same default exposure everywhere (spinner, cockpit, TV-cam, etc). Maybe there should be a tad bit of enhanced autoexposure while in dark cockpit for it to be fully realistic, idk. I use 120cd/m3 for reading and quite a bit higher for all gaming.
 
Does Sweetfx (or Reshade) work with the current x64 rF2? Can you share a link to rF2 settings pls? As last I searched, it wasn't working. Trying to get it closer to SCE. Thanks.
I got Wedge's visions working after a bit of head scratching. Basically just unrar it into the Bin64 directory of your rFactor2 install. It doesn't overwrite anything. Edit the MasterEffect.h file to get the settings you'd like.

As near as I can tell the depth of field doesn't work, but everything else seems to. I use tonemapping to drop the exposure and increase the gamma and saturation, which makes things look a bit less washed out on my monitor.
 
I got Wedge's visions working after a bit of head scratching. Basically just unrar it into the Bin64 directory of your rFactor2 install. It doesn't overwrite anything. Edit the MasterEffect.h file to get the settings you'd like.

As near as I can tell the depth of field doesn't work, but everything else seems to. I use tonemapping to drop the exposure and increase the gamma and saturation, which makes things look a bit less washed out on my monitor.
Thanks! Can you pm your file/settings, so at least I can compare stock settings from yours and learn from them, as I'm not yet familiar with the parameters.
BTW: You get to have it work with Trackmap plugin?
 
Last edited:
Without reading the whole post...is this worst getting? I am loving gsce at the minute as a point of reference. I hear this has the best offline play is that true? Is online good?


AI behavior is good. They drive clean and will give you a challenge. (See video.)
But 1 thingy is missing. Something like a offline championship: You'll need to that manually by setting up your race with the AI you want. And keep the scoring manually.
But i guess it will come in the future.

Online racing: IMO: Like any multiplayer game: It best to enjoy it in a community like RD. Once you get to know the "rF2 community" you'll see the same names popping up at various servers, leagues and also on open/public servers. rF2 is a small community.
 
So using these tools can you set up offline championships from race to race with the same ai realistically as you can in other games? Do you have to set it all up yourself or can you download seasons? I don't mind just playing single races against the ai but seasons would be great
 
" I personally doubt the average simracer cares much about graphics,"

I'm afraid I completely disagree with this. If we didn't care about graphics we would still be running our sims on 14" monitors at 320x200 resolution like we did 20 years ago. The GPL community must be considered as a pretty "hardcore" sim community but in the time I was involved from 1998 to 2005, the graphics of GPL were transformed by the community beyond all recognition.

There is no conflict between wanting good graphics and wanting good physics or good AI or good netcode or good sound.

For me, sub par graphics are far from a deal breaker but sub par physics are a big deal breaker. I love RF2 and can't even bring myself to even open Pcars anymore. A lot of the new or updated content in RF2 looks quite realistic.

Many people seem to prefer fancy, Hollywood, through the camera lens style graphics of Pcars but I don't care for it. The newest stuff from ISI looks the most realistic to me.
 
Many people seem to prefer fancy, Hollywood, through the camera lens style graphics of Pcars but I don't care for it. The newest stuff from ISI looks the most realistic to me.

My comment said nothing about the graphics of rF2, nor did I say that physics were not important. All I said was that although its fashionable to say "real" simracers don't care about graphics I just don't believe it. Are you running a 14" monitor? What resolution do you run? 640x480? Have you turned off AA and AF? Are track and car details at minimum?

You don't like pCARs graphics and you think rF2 has the best graphics. Your comments seem to me to confirm my views - you do care about graphics.

My sims of choice, GT Legends and GTR2 are certainly not state of the art in terms of graphics, but I care about graphics. I run both titles with everything maxed graphics wise and I'm part of a mod team which spends hours on the graphics of our mod as well as hours on the physics and indeed on the sounds.
 
Last edited:
I never said I didn't care about graphics. Of course "real" simracers care about graphics but graphics are not the be all end all.....the physics are much more important. First and foremost, the physics and FFB in RF2 are top notch and I just happen to prefer the minimalist graphics of the newest updated RF2 content compared to the Michael Bay lens flare stuff in Pcars.

I was actually agreeing with you that sim racers care about graphics but just pointing out that if the physics are lacking, I would rather drive a sim with great physics but with graphics that many would say are outdated(In RF2's case, I think they are great).

To go even further, for example, If PCars had literally 1:1 true to life graphics, I still would not drive it.
 
Last edited:
i put on that new nissan and clipsal track, and i didnt think the visuals were bad. Yes theres no special affects overlaying the whole thing, but it looks realistic in some cam angles. I can live with the visuals in both rf2 and gsc, as long as i have smooth fps.
 
So using these tools can you set up offline championships from race to race with the same ai realistically as you can in other games? Do you have to set it all up yourself or can you download seasons? I don't mind just playing single races against the ai but seasons would be great
You can do a season.
What you do is create a virtual team, (easier to explain when you have the sim).
You can then tune each individual driver to have the characteristics you want.
Then you load the track, hand pick the exact AI you have tuned (names and all).
Do the race.
Then you put the results in an online tool called sim results .net.
Here is one race where I made the top gear team with their personal characteristics.
http://simresults.net/150805-Zg9

Then you do another and build your season.
Some tracks the AI are weaker but you can adjust that with overall AI settings.
Here is the video
 
just wanted to say..

between the new nissan, vette, bathurst and adelaide.

rf2 has become my hot sim right now. its just so improved than the last time i really sat down with it!!

nothing comes close imo.

not to mention the best ai in pc sim racing atm
 

Latest News

What's needed for simracing in 2024?

  • More games, period

  • Better graphics/visuals

  • Advanced physics and handling

  • More cars and tracks

  • AI improvements

  • AI engineering

  • Cross-platform play

  • New game Modes

  • Other, post your idea


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top