What do you want in a track, a good drive, or a scenery kick?

[Marco Bijl]

Just a simple question. What do you like best. There is no right or wrong answer here, just your opinion.

Reason I ask, is that I noticed that last weeks event with Snetterton track was not so popular. I know the tracks looks are not that up-to rf2 standards, but I do like the drive there. Hence my question .

So, what do you think about that?

 

[Justin Swan]

A good drive. Simple as that

 

[Marco Bijl]

I really favour a good drive as well. Even a track like Jamara 60 something (graphically spoken) can be satisfying for me, if the flow is right. Sure, i like the screenshots from tracks as Silverstone, Croft and other beautiful tracks, but driving wise, I rarely notice all the high fancy things.

1 example of super detail is the photographer that will be alongside the final release of Bahrain. The guy takes a picture, looks at his camera to see ifs alright, and takes another one. I mean, I fly by there with I do not know how fast while driving, so I do not see that . So purely for the drive (which is basicaly why I drive online), It could almost be just as well an empty track (sort of speak ).

 

[David O'Reilly]

For me its the drive. The eye candy is nice for sure but secondary for me.
Maybe that's why we are playing RF2 after all!
Ive never driven Snetterton b4 today. Found it hard to learn, but just then had a good race.
Was nice to get another track under my belt.

Now if we had Mt Panorama, that would get me to park the open wheelers for a week and drive a tin top.

 

[Axel Moebius]

I like that the tracks looks nice with as much detail as possible. And I do notice it while racing. And,
if one enjoys to watch a replay from a race, I like that the surroundings looks nice(eyecandy)

 

[Marco Bijl]

Well, thats indeed a very valid point Axel... In replays and broadcastings, surroundings do matter. It gives an athmosphere to tracks. But I hardly notice that when I am actually driving myself.

Guess that says something about my skills as well I need to focus real hard on the road, and braking markers and such. Perhaps thats also influencing what I see or not...

 

[Xavier de Carvalho]

I love technical tracks with a nice flow. Something that makes you feel like you're always on edge, but still something that isn't stupidly difficult to get right.

 

[Tim Meuris]

preferably both but if I have to choose I go for the good drive, always.

 

[Miroslav Davidovic]

A good drive. Simple as that

Agree with that but just driven on Mores and was like that.......

 

[Nick Deeley]

It's not just the track, but the car combination too.

For instance, the Megane around the Mores track with their fixed ratios, your in 1st, 2nd, 3rd (and just about 4th) gears and its just a bit fiddly. The GTR's I would thought do not suit the track at all (although I've not driven them around there). Clio's should be pretty good fun around there.

A nice to drive track includes the eye candy. Taken to the extreme - having a flat mono-coloured track with green all around would be incredibly boring, even if its the layout of Le Mans or Bathurst.

 

[tjc]

If I had to chose between the two options I`d have to go for a good drive, but as others have said, I`d really like both and I think these days that`s not too much to want...

Ok... call me greedy.

 

[Stefan Woudenberg]

1st Good drive
2nd Good looks (if it keeps the fps up)

 

[Ian Franssen]

For me it's a good drive above everything else, good looks if possible but I can do without.

 

[April Dillon]

I like having spacious tracks. It doesn't take much space to drive fast and exciting, but you need a lot more space to mount attacks for overtakes and such. If corners come too rapidly, it becomes difficult to stay on the offensive without slipping backwards. Especially if you lose downforce in a slipstream.

Having plenty of rich scenery is helpful too. It's very difficult to maintain consistent braking points in areas where there's nothing at the track side.

I also like the natural line to be fairly safe. There's tracks in LFS where going through chicanes, if you're a tiny bit too aggressive, you'll roll your car over easily. And as this can easily happen in the heat of battle, it really spoils the fun when an exciting chase is cut short by something silly like this.

A moderate length is probably good too, to minimize how much lapped traffic mixes together. As on longer tracks, it takes more time for the race leader to catch the backmarkers, which suits both parties.

The only other thing, I don't like having lots of long straights. Circuits like Le Mans and Spa '67 I find tedious, as although the corners are good, there's far too much waiting in between them for me.

 

[Calum McLure]

I want kerbs/corners like this

Although a good drive is the main thing you can't understate nice scenery, helps greatly with immersion for me at least.

Don't think I could drive a game with scenery like this even if it had rF2 physics

 

[David O'Reilly]

I want kerbs/corners like this

Although a good drive is the main thing you can't understate nice scenery, helps greatly with immersion for me at least.

Don't think I could drive a game with scenery like this even if it had rF2 physics

Calum this game (pictured) was flawed. I read on a thread that it had crazy amounts of rear grip and the damage /penalty system and tyre deg/wear were non existent. Just ask the IRacing guys they'll tell you

 

[Mark Greenall]

Calum this game (pictured) was flawed. I read on a thread that it had crazy amounts of rear grip and the damage /penalty system and tyre deg/wear were non existent. Just ask the IRacing guys they'll tell you

Whats become of mr o'reilly? Racing much?

 

[Mark Greenall]

I'd have to says Physics are the goal, not visuals. Race, on xbox rubbish graphics but the best physics! I think tbh, companys get the game looking good but ignore physics (Good graphics sell to millions - good sims sell to thousands) Ala f1 2012, I try to get into it but i gave up in the end it feels so unnatural to me.

 

[David O'Reilly]

Whats become of mr o'reilly? Racing much?

Hi Mark
Getting my feet wet with RF2.
Did a race or two oin Camaro GT3 at Mid Ohio, FR 3.5 at Snetterton and Sebring. So yes RF2 Club Races.
Tempted by the upcoming endurance races. Fancy making a team?.

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

What is important to me:

- Track with a good flow for car with a high proportion of time spent above a certain lateral g-force. In sim racing, turning is more fun and challenging than going straight, not just because low sense of speed on straights but also because the concentration required and physical feedback you get from wheel in turns

- Raceability, opportunities to pass, etc.

- Graphics "easy on the eyes". Does not need to be pretty but should have minimal aliasing, be easy to see track boundaries, good contrast, enough objects for reference points, etc.

- Good FPS

What is NOT important to me, but is important to others:

- Simulate favorite IRL cars and races so pick cars and tracks based on that and want as close to reality as possible and there is nothing wrong with that

- Historical significance and there is nothing wrong with that

- Graphics quality and there is nothing wrong with that, especially since some are naturally more sensitive to graphics than others

- Easy to drive car and there is nothing wrong with that, although I believe more challenging cars are more rewarding and, with focus, people can learn to drive them well without additional time commitment. The more my driving improves, the more I find that I can improve at a given track and the less I depend on a constant flow of new tracks to keep me interested.

- Cars and tracks that can be competitive in and there is nothing wrong with that, in the long run I believe it is possible to become more competitive in more challenging cars because of focus and practice. Also

My favorite car/track combos:

- 60s F1 @ Malaysia, Texas, Essington, Silverstone, Orchard Lake, Sebring

- 60s F2 @ Toban Long, Oran Park, Mid-OH, Lienz