• Welcome to the largest (sim) racing website in the world!
    Blurring the line between real and virtual motorsports.

Featured rFactor 2: The Big Interview (Part 3)

Discussion in 'rFactor 2' started by Paul Jeffrey, Jul 7, 2019.

  1. tlsmikey

    tlsmikey

    Messages:
    576
    Ratings:
    +261
    I don't think the serious simracing market (rf2's crowd) necessarily want's graphics over anything else, but I think the graphics in rf2 are pretty bad to be honest. The new shaders are dark and murky, the cockpits are very dated looking in comparison to anything out there and the performance is not as good either (larger FPS drops).

    rF2 seems okay with it though, saying their sim has a "gritty" look to it. Every time I fire it up and share my cockpit with someone the first thing they say is "what is this game from 1990?". I don't think the look they have now is gonna keep them going for the next few years. The audio/graphics of modern sims are just moving too quickly to keep the current look and the physics/ffb are catching up if not already caught up on some titles.
     
    • Agree Agree x 8
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Like Like x 2
    • Beer Beer x 1
  2. MPortnoy

    MPortnoy

    Messages:
    310
    Ratings:
    +239
    @tlsmikey That I agree. rF2 is not the best looking game and physics/ffb are catching up in other titles, but saying "Nowadays the community wants graphics instead of physics" is plain wrong if we're talking about the RD community. We want sims, not arcade games.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Chris Haye

    Chris Haye
    Premium

    Messages:
    70
    Ratings:
    +90
    Heh, in my experience, sim racers want everything... and anything short of perfection makes a sim completely worthless :p
     
    • Haha Haha x 7
    • Beer Beer x 5
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Shovas

    Shovas
    Premium

    Messages:
    732
    Ratings:
    +295
    If you still needed a reason to support S397 and rFactor2 :cool::thumbsup:
     
    • Beer Beer x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. David Wright

    David Wright

    Messages:
    1,009
    Ratings:
    +526
    Which is the most popular RD forum measured by replies? Codemasters F1 series.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. MPortnoy

    MPortnoy

    Messages:
    310
    Ratings:
    +239
    True, and there's two main reasons why.

    1) It's a series that releases a game every year, with a subforum for each release...so far 10 if I'm correct. How many games have Kunos, Reiza or S397 have released?
    2) It's popularity is because it's a game about the most popular racing series in the world, F1, nothing to do with graphics or physics
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  7. protonv5

    protonv5

    Messages:
    467
    Ratings:
    +186
    Lol. They're disagreeing with the fact that you're not discussing how great Kunos and ACC are. Lol
     
  8. tr1v1um

    tr1v1um

    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +76
    I think noone will argue that rF2 isn't the best looking game out there, but it's wierd to call the graphics just outright bad from a technical standpoint from my POV, while keeping in mind that the shaders for the cockpits haven't been touched at all and that the PBR rendering is WIP. If you have the PC to handle it, give Le Mans with the Endurance pack a run at 6 am. It's simply an astonishing experience.

    Mind you, I really play all the current gen sims and it is pretty clear to see where each sim excells and where they have weakpoints. Graphics quality in that regard reaches from reflections, aliasing, shadows, image sharpness, fluidity and how materials interact with the light to a couple of other things like weather rendering. And something that I really like about rF2 is that it renders foliage pretty damn well from cockpit view and gives a very clean and sharp image. I would go as far to say that trees and the AA look alot better than in the Madness engine or UE4. I will admit, alot of this is down to different hardware specs, but I can't get the results in those areas in other products. Trees in UE4 look horrendous from my POV and that's not just the case with racing sims. I think we are at a point right now, where graphics quality in sims is too good to give enough stability with most products. The most complaints we see right now are about performance, even from people with very strong hardware.
     
  9. tr1v1um

    tr1v1um

    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +76
    Sorry for the late response,

    most of the official tracks have puddle maps and some of the tracks in the workshop aswell. A semi-official track that hasn't puddlemaps and instantly comes to my mind is Interlagos. With that track you get the mirror effect. Luckily there is a community update for that track aswell somewhere. Those puddles look pretty damn good to me:
    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  10. Tar Heel

    Tar Heel

    Messages:
    146
    Ratings:
    +101
    Afraid we are at the back of the bus until they get their multiplayer up and running. Offline players are second class citizens it seems
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  11. protonv5

    protonv5

    Messages:
    467
    Ratings:
    +186
    Yeah I agree. ACC really needs a much better single player mode.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Germain Entete

    Germain Entete

    Messages:
    49
    Ratings:
    +29
    Many simmers want nice looking sims. Not all simmers buy the bs "doesn't matter if the sim looks dated".
    There is a reason why AMS2 announcement was so warmly welcomed by the community.

    So please stop, you RF2 guys, reminding us that gfx are a detail every time they issue some RF2 news, you are the only ones to believe it. The ones who play RF2 in leagues, since online has 0 player.
    I fully respect RF2 players, but they are wrong to come on the Web to preach that graphics are secondary, it's mid 2019 now, and charts show the majority of simmers disagree.
     
    • Disagree x 5
    • Beer x 3
    • Like x 2
    • Love x 1
    • Agree x 1
  13. Martin Fiala

    Martin Fiala
    Premium

    Messages:
    5,215
    Ratings:
    +4,332
    The puddles look good, but the screenshot is a textbook example of two big rF2 graphics issues - it's very underexposed and very teal...
     
  14. MPortnoy

    MPortnoy

    Messages:
    310
    Ratings:
    +239
    Again, I'm not disagreeing with you either, I also want nice graphics, I want both physics and graphics. Read again, my problem with that sentence is the word "instead"
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. tr1v1um

    tr1v1um

    Messages:
    105
    Ratings:
    +76
    Depends on the TOD from my perspective, when we talk exposure. It is overcast with a bit of sunlight. One thing that is pretty obvious is that there is no use of PBR in that image, wich makes the environment look flat. The cyan tint is debatable though and an art choice. I personaly don't like it either, but there are a wide variety of options for color gradients. I have seen people using Reshade presets, that are supposed to make it look better, but it just makes everything purple for my eye. This is actually a quite complex topic so I would be careful to just point out those things as wrong.

    That's an intersting read about Frostbite engine. Completely different level when we are talking budgets though:
    https://media.contentapi.ea.com/con.../files/s2016-pbs-frostbite-sky-clouds-new.pdf
     
  16. John-Eric Saxén

    John-Eric Saxén

    Messages:
    1,644
    Ratings:
    +933
    The problem is not us "rF2 guys", the problem is that 99% of the time there is a news thread about anything rF2 related, it starts by someone coming in complaining about graphics, after which the entire thread derails into graphics. At this point us "rF2 guys" tend to get a bit annoyed and point out that it's not all about graphics. It's especially annoying because it was exactly the same debate a year ago before they released new advanced PBR shaders and two years ago before DX11, etc. Doesn't matter how many graphics improvements they release, nothing ever changes in the debate. You can find similar discussions over at ACC forums as well, it's full of complaints about graphics and performance.

    It's not that we are not interested in graphics, but it's a bit sad to see graphics take over 90% of the debate space in sims. I was a critic of rF2 graphics for years, but they have already come a long way now since 2016. No sim developer bothers to invest in new tire models anymore since people can only seemingly tell the difference in terms of graphics. Now when I think about it, I haven't heard a word about new tire model advances in several years in any sim. Same with online gameplay. rF2 just had its probably biggest event of the year fail by online issues and I'd argue part of the problem is that S397 has had to put most of their time into improving graphics, because who really cares about online except for us "rF2 guys"? Most consumers just do hotlaps and leave the game if the graphics aren't full of eye candy.
     
    • Beer Beer x 8
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 4
  17. Cote Dazur

    Cote Dazur

    Messages:
    1,244
    Ratings:
    +630
    No problem, there is no rush, I am not going anywhere.:D
    Yes interlagos is really bad, but so far I have not driven one that does not have the mirror effect to a degree or an other, even one of the latest like VIR. The side object, even if hey are far reflect on the track as if it was a calm river at the end of the day. I find it very fake it hides where the track really ends and all those moving reflection are distracting.
    So I would be curious to try one that does not do it, that is why I was asking,
    Thank you in advance.:)
     
  18. Cote Dazur

    Cote Dazur

    Messages:
    1,244
    Ratings:
    +630
    One challenge for RF2 is that with a lot of other sim offering better and better graphics, RF2, who as improved, will just loose more and more ground to the other alternative. So, since we and the developers wish for RF2 to not only survive but also flourish, addressing what seems pissing off a lot of people seem like it should be a priority at this time. Particularly since allegedly RF2 has been and still does offer superior physic and ffb but struggle gaining more most needed players.
    With 4K, VR, the visual is more important than it ever was to help with the immersion we are all seeking. Their is no turning back.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. Leynad777

    Leynad777
    Premium

    Messages:
    529
    Ratings:
    +211
    Just without triple-screen and proper VR-support, but huge graphics lag on a single-display and in ACC i can get even motion-sick in VR because of the bad performance.

    If this looks 90's, what is iRacing looking like? 60's?

     
    • Like x 3
    • Haha x 1
    • Beer x 1
    • Agree x 1
    • Disagree x 1
  20. Kresh

    Kresh
    Premium

    Messages:
    285
    Ratings:
    +184
    More power to you if graphics are so important for you, for me graphics aren't a deal breaker if the physics are good , good graphics with bad physics is a deal breaker for me. I guess it depends what are you looking for, good for us there is choices for everyone.

    From your logic the attendance in events here in RD should be ACC full grid every week, and rF2 GT3 events less than 10 ppl because most sim racers want better graphics. Go check your self this weeks and other passed weeks in the calendar and you will see what most sim racers want at least here in RD.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.