The "What Are You Working On?" Thread

Rf2 is a ton more work in 3d and texturing. To get a model from 3d software into just rf2 devmode already takes at least 4x more work. Then get it from dev mode to the main game... Not because there are more features but because there is a lot more manual work for less functionality. Sure the setup changeable car parts are nice but it is a massive chore to get it to work without issues and documentation. Plus with ac you are working with a product that is well understood and well documented with great tools.

Just to set up a material for rf2 you need to set up 4 uvmaps for the shader you know you want and there is no info at all which uvmap uses which texture slots. Skinnable materials need to be manually set in text file, named correctly and after all that work it is just the main diffuse texture that can be skinned. In ac you just unwrap the part, press export, assign and adjust the shader. To make a texture skinnable you don't need to do anything as all textures are skinnable by default. The cars in rf2 even require cubemap for environmental reflections which is never used outside of the development tools because tracks have their own. And tracks can break the shaders of your car making it look totally different. Just think about that...

99% of the text files contain no useful information at all about the parameters and what they do. Or if it even does anything anymore. Everything needs to be set up extremely precisely in certain way. In ac you can just roll your face over the keyboard and then export it and it all works. As long as you have couple of nulls named right the rest can be whatever. In rf2 you need to setup the material names, texture names and object names exactly like is explained nowhere then fiddle with some undocumented text file following the obscure 1998 sportscar gt way of doing things. Go over it hundred times and you finally figure out all the ways everything is linked together. Then do some of it again when you move from devmode to main game.

In ac if you don't know what to do just read the official documentation. Rf2 95% of the modding pipeline is undocumented and there is zero information about it so you end up digging through old rf1 threads trying to find those nuggets of information you need. Would not recommend. Physics is better but good luck if you get there before self harm happens...

I recommend everybody to try to make something in rf2. It just gives you a whole new appreciation how easy and effortless ac modding is compared to rf2.
 
Rf2 is a ton more work in 3d and texturing. To get a model from 3d software into just rf2 devmode already takes at least 4x more work. Then get it from dev mode to the main game... Not because there are more features but because there is a lot more manual work for less functionality. Sure the setup changeable car parts are nice but it is a massive chore to get it to work without issues and documentation. Plus with ac you are working with a product that is well understood and well documented with great tools.

Just to set up a material for rf2 you need to set up 4 uvmaps for the shader you know you want and there is no info at all which uvmap uses which texture slots. Skinnable materials need to be manually set in text file, named correctly and after all that work it is just the main diffuse texture that can be skinned. In ac you just unwrap the part, press export, assign and adjust the shader. To make a texture skinnable you don't need to do anything as all textures are skinnable by default. The cars in rf2 even require cubemap for environmental reflections which is never used outside of the development tools because tracks have their own. And tracks can break the shaders of your car making it look totally different. Just think about that...

99% of the text files contain no useful information at all about the parameters and what they do. Or if it even does anything anymore. Everything needs to be set up extremely precisely in certain way. In ac you can just roll your face over the keyboard and then export it and it all works. As long as you have couple of nulls named right the rest can be whatever. In rf2 you need to setup the material names, texture names and object names exactly like is explained nowhere then fiddle with some undocumented text file following the obscure 1998 sportscar gt way of doing things. Go over it hundred times and you finally figure out all the ways everything is linked together. Then do some of it again when you move from devmode to main game.

In ac if you don't know what to do just read the official documentation. Rf2 95% of the modding pipeline is undocumented and there is zero information about it so you end up digging through old rf1 threads trying to find those nuggets of information you need. Would not recommend. Physics is better but good luck if you get there before self harm happens...

I recommend everybody to try to make something in rf2. It just gives you a whole new appreciation how easy and effortless ac modding is compared to rf2.
...and don't even get me started about RF2's tire model
 
Rf2 is a ton more work in 3d and texturing. To get a model from 3d software into just rf2 devmode already takes at least 4x more work. Then get it from dev mode to the main game... Not because there are more features but because there is a lot more manual work for less functionality. Sure the setup changeable car parts are nice but it is a massive chore to get it to work without issues and documentation. Plus with ac you are working with a product that is well understood and well documented with great tools. There is one more issue with gJed (basically ksEditor for rF2), in AC ksEditor almost always were fine, gJed needs some improvements, and right now is not even included officialy. Hopefuly it will get some love in not too distant future.

Just to set up a material for rf2 you need to set up 4 uvmaps for the shader you know you want and there is no info at all which uvmap uses which texture slots. Skinnable materials need to be manually set in text file, named correctly and after all that work it is just the main diffuse texture that can be skinned. In ac you just unwrap the part, press export, assign and adjust the shader. To make a texture skinnable you don't need to do anything as all textures are skinnable by default. The cars in rf2 even require cubemap for environmental reflections which is never used outside of the development tools because tracks have their own. And tracks can break the shaders of your car making it look totally different. Just think about that...

99% of the text files contain no useful information at all about the parameters and what they do. Or if it even does anything anymore. Everything needs to be set up extremely precisely in certain way. In ac you can just roll your face over the keyboard and then export it and it all works. As long as you have couple of nulls named right the rest can be whatever. In rf2 you need to setup the material names, texture names and object names exactly like is explained nowhere then fiddle with some undocumented text file following the obscure 1998 sportscar gt way of doing things. Go over it hundred times and you finally figure out all the ways everything is linked together. Then do some of it again when you move from devmode to main game.

In ac if you don't know what to do just read the official documentation. Rf2 95% of the modding pipeline is undocumented and there is zero information about it so you end up digging through old rf1 threads trying to find those nuggets of information you need. Would not recommend. Physics is better but good luck if you get there before self harm happens...

I recommend everybody to try to make something in rf2. It just gives you a whole new appreciation how easy and effortless ac modding is compared to rf2.

rF2 modelling is more complex to me because it seems like it is meant to be done with 3Ds max, but it is possible to do by using Travellers blender addon. With blender it is slightly complicated with few details, I wish it to get better, but Traveller already dedicated a lot of his effort to chase ever changing rF2 and blender. True it is more complex as it uses multiple UV channels for some certain shaders, it supports vertex colors. It is definitelly more difficult than modeling for AC, but really not 4x times. Also really not for less functionality. There are some bits where AC has better controls over shaders, less business with shadows and reflections, overall more simple, but for a single example AC colors are flat and lighting is flat, in rF2 you get Ambient/Diffuse/Specular/Emmision colors, which makes it much easier to get colors right, and illumination model in rF2 is very alive and real.

There is great amount of documentation in text files, also there are plenty documentation for shaders and important bits to know for artist, though I'd agree that it could be useful to have slightly more. Also there is a site where is a ton of explanations and tools for working with physics, something AC never had, so for that single reason alone it is easier to play with them for a beginner (or maybe even work with physics if you are cool for mclarenf1papa enough). Again you come with numbers like 99% percent which is absolute nonsense, if you'd be reasonable with numbers you'd say that it is about ~25-35% maybe.

It is not bad there as I believed before. In about 2months I have car and a track in rF2 devmode, and it wasn't too much effort and too much time to do it, probably third of a time was going through documentation, explanations and forums just to break the ice. I expected it to be more difficult.

Last couple days I was playing with TBC files for tires to make them somewhat like I expect them to be, not something very serious, but I have some uderstanding about them and I know my goal. And I am pretty much there in terms of car behavior. There is also TGM file for tire, well thats a bit different story, I only touched two lines in there so far. But seems like that was enough.

You most definitely have easier flowing and more simple moding in AC, but in rF2 is not that much harder and you have more functions and flexibility. I never really got XJ13 color right and I wasted way too much time in AC trying it, only to be reduced because I chose to use lesser reflection level, in rF2 it comes much easier with actually realistic illumination and good color control. Tires in rF2 definitely has more documentation and are easier going in TBC file than in AC, TGM is different thing and different level and I suppose shouldn't be messed around very much. Of course mclarenf1papa could say much more about rF2 tire modding, should know better it is + and - comparing to AC, I am just a beginner.
 
Last edited:
I've been playing lots of Crysis 1 lately, analysing all the gorgeous foliage, if we're talking about non-Assetto Corsa stuff.

It's been ten years since Crysis first released on PC. In 2007, it pushed real time rendering to new heights and spawned the memetic phrase, "but can it run Crysis?". Never had a game released that pushed hardware and engine technology so much, and never has one since. In fact, combine the latest and greatest Intel Core i7 8700K overclocked to 5.0GHz with an Nvidia Titan Xp and there'll still be areas of the game that drop beneath 60fps - even at 1080p. For its own very specific reasons, Crysis is still more than capable of melting the most modern, top-end PCs, but regardless, it remains a phenomenal technological achievement. It deserves a remaster at the very least, but a franchise of this standing really deserves a full next-gen sequel, with state-of-the-art rendering and back-to-basics gameplay.

But what made Crysis so groundbreaking - and perhaps so misunderstood - at the time of its release? In the video below, I play through the first level of the game, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of its rendering - and it's this initial stage that was our first glimpse of the game back in 2007. Crytek released a demo of this area with a full level editor, where you could spawn weapons, entities and enemies that only show up later in the game. It was a short, but comprehensive showing of all of Crysis' systems and grandeur in one 1.8GB download.

The game started as it meant to go on. In the very first scene alone, there's a separable gaussian depth of field on foreground objects, soft z-feathered particles for the fog in between the alien stalactite structures, and even ray-marched volumetric lighting that is visible as the alien vessel opens up. From here we transition over to a shot of Raptor team's transport flying into the island and we are greeted with some subtle metallic sheen on the jet itself, and some quite gorgeous rendered volumetric clouds with permeability, back scattering, and even inner shadowing. Let's remember that this hails from the year 2007 of course, where most games still were relying on static skyboxes.

And then there was the character rendering - and bam, it's right in your face. At this point in time, Crytek knew that its character technology was way ahead of its contemporaries, so you get to appreciate it right away. Being a forward shading engine, Crysis uses a lot of bespoke shaders in multiple passes to achieve very specific materials. So character eyes and hair all use their own special shading model that tries to approach "realism". It's not physically-based materials like you see in modern games, but nonetheless, an attempt to give a similar effect.

This opening cut-scene also gives you a first glance at the game's extensive use of post-processing. Every character movement is exaggerated and weighted with a very high quality per-object motion blur, which has a great and subtle tail and rather low shutter speed, with many samples. On a high-end 8800 GTX at 1280x1024 resolution, that effect alone would consume 4ms of GPU time - a full 25 per cent of the frame-time required to hit 60fps. Suffice to say that not many PCs were going to be getting a stable 30fps at the highest settings.
 
How many laps did you do before you could make one so neatly? I always find it tough to drive a bare circuit like that, where there aren't any landmarks.
A lot....

You can tell some of the driving is like "hey the track is over here!"

I have more land in now with some armco and it is much easier to drive. I just don't have a video of it.
 
It's quite amazing how intimately you get to know a circuit when you make it yourself, don't you think?

I've done just over 18,000km on the track I'm working on atm, and I know every turn, camber change, bump, everything :inlove:
 
It's quite amazing how intimately you get to know a circuit when you make it yourself, don't you think?

I've done just over 18,000km on the track I'm working on atm, and I know every turn, camber change, bump, everything :inlove:
I'm still early in that process but yes it is a thing for sure. When we ran Bridgehampton in a league race I felt I had a sizable advantage and I won the race by 30 seconds or so against a very strong field of drivers in the 312/67. I won at Watkins this past season too in the Lotus 79. I was leading a race at NJMP when I got taken out by a lap car a few weeks back in GT3 Cup. So yeah building a track tends to give be a little bit of a head start on how to drive it.

With Calabogie it is a little different as there isn't much testing required. You just kinda stick it on the data and you're done.
 
Finally released. Two version with different physics. 2009 All wheel drive debut and 2010-2011 Rear wheel drive winners
LQlnnXQbebI.jpg
bRGqpjEFtoI.jpg
5gtiO_rK-zg.jpg

-----
Uzr1Y2xItso.jpg
 
One LOD down, 2 to go...

yJoi1bC.jpg

LODB = 24828 faces (cause budget is 25k)

This is at 4m distance switch, actual mod will have it at 8m (so half as big) I just wanted to do a big screenshot.
 
This is at 4m distance switch, actual mod will have it at 8m (so half as big) I just wanted to do a big screenshot.

Incredible how gorgeous that looks!

Don't shoot me for saying this, but to my eye the springs look a little thin. Is it just because they're an intense red against a grey background? The only other thing that jumps out if I stare long enough is the tire polygons and it's the lighting that is the tell-tale... they'll be just right at half that size (I stepped back from the monitor to check, LOL).
 

Latest News

Are you buying car setups?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top