Rf2 Visuals not as bad as people make out?

[LokiD1978]

http://steamcommunity.com/id/lokid78/screenshots/?appid=365960&sort=newestfirst&browsefilter=myfiles&view=imagewall#scrollTop=1

All in game grabs no Photoshop here! Yes its not pcars but it has a realistic feel to it.

[Marketcrash16]

Publicado originalmente por quf:

Publicado originalmente por Marketcrash16:

Only a fanboy gets butthurt by a comment that isn't even an insult. FFS. While I am not a fan of Pcars as a game, I split my time almost exactly 50/50 between Assetto and RF2. AC graphics (imo) are better than RF2, my point was that AC is more polished and looks like a showroom. It's a compliment not an insult.

No, your point was that AC has Hollywood graphics, thus saying it isn't real life like, but just like make up on someone's face...

"Rfactor 2 has realistic graphics, where as Pcars and Assetto have graphics that look like a Hollywood movie...sort of "better than real life" if that makes sense."

'Better than real life' and 'hollywood' has a negative connotation in this case, because you refer to other sim as realistic graphics while for other it isn't realistic anymore.

Just so you tell me, where are the hollywood graphics here in this AC gameplay screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/2UU2t3u.jpg

No it doesn't have a negative connotation . YOU chose to take it in a negative way. WHen you watch a movie like Fast and Furious... are those cars not real? Yes...they are, they just look more polished . Is that negative? No... it isn't. I also said Assettos graphics were better than RF2 but you only focused on what you perceived as negative. So why did you only choose to "defend" Assetto and not PCars as well?

[metalhead]

Ok AC has realistiv gfx + RF@ has realistc gfx -
besides being recources hog to achive it.
Both are great fun

[LokiD1978]

new caterham pics up!

[LokiD1978]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=797168341

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=797115282

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=183202808

[FalseLion]

who cares about the graphics. Oval sim fans are still playing nr2003 which honestly if you tweak the graphics looks fine. If graphics are your #1 priority when looking for a racing game, then a racing simulator is not for you. I keep my stuff turned down in any game I play. It's something I learned from nascar racing 2. Alot of times lower quality graphics provide an edge anyway. I've got a pretty decent gaming pc and I very rarely play a game with everything cranked up. I'd rather it perform well than sit and drool over shadows and reflections.

[MatF1]

Publicado originalmente por DOLN XShortestStrawX:

RF2 doesn't have "poor" graphics. But they are far from great. Bland textures are the biggest difference in comparison to the other major sim racing titles. Graphics aren't what really matters anyway.

Interestingly, all the tracks I rip from other sims have much poorer texture res than I'm seeing in ISI tracks. It seems they use techniques in the engine to enhance instead of using the raw texture clarity available to them. Fences and grass are prime examples of this.

Publicado originalmente por TheEngiGuy:

Publicado originalmente por Marketcrash16:

Rfactor 2 has realistic graphics, where as Pcars and Assetto have graphics that look like a Hollywood movie...sort of "better than real life" if that makes sense. I have no problem with either, but I think some struggle with RF2 because it is a gpu hog.

At least those games have proper sunlight.

Actually, no they don't. They have light sources... Think spotlights where you can control size, colour, direction, amplitude, refraction and many other properties.

rF2 uses a 'sun' system which does in fact mimic real life very well. The upside of this technique is if a building casts a shadow irl, then it will in rF2. The downside, is if the shadow is offputting, you can not filter it down per object. Essentially, you have a living world as opposed to a picture.

[Mike_Oxmall]

"rF2 uses a 'sun' system which does in fact mimic real life very well. The upside of this technique is if a building casts a shadow irl, then it will in rF2. The downside, is if the shadow is offputting, you can not filter it down per object. Essentially, you have a living world as opposed to a picture."

so your saying that it isnt a light source projecting in the game world, but instead ISI modeled a burning ball of incandesant gas approx 8 .5 light minutes away from their game world?

ahem...ha ha hah

[wattsrace]

Publicado originalmente por FalseLion:

who cares about the graphics. Oval sim fans are still playing nr2003 which honestly if you tweak the graphics looks fine. If graphics are your #1 priority when looking for a racing game, then a racing simulator is not for you. I keep my stuff turned down in any game I play. It's something I learned from nascar racing 2. Alot of times lower quality graphics provide an edge anyway. I've got a pretty decent gaming pc and I very rarely play a game with everything cranked up. I'd rather it perform well than sit and drool over shadows and reflections.

- who cares about the graphics?: those who spent hundreds and thousands in hardware.

- If graphics are your #1 priority when looking for a racing game, then a racing simulator is not for you: a still misused argument.

- ... sit and drool over shadows and reflections: unnecessary without suitable high quality ;-)

Although I'm still playing RBR with vintage graphic: it´s 2016, means I expect physics AND graphics according on the current possibilities.

[JoeSpeed]

I mean, I think he might be right. If you consider some of the best, most complete sims out there aren't the best graphically, then you might have to switch your priorities.

[FalseLion]

Publicado originalmente por wattsrace:

Publicado originalmente por FalseLion:

who cares about the graphics. Oval sim fans are still playing nr2003 which honestly if you tweak the graphics looks fine. If graphics are your #1 priority when looking for a racing game, then a racing simulator is not for you. I keep my stuff turned down in any game I play. It's something I learned from nascar racing 2. Alot of times lower quality graphics provide an edge anyway. I've got a pretty decent gaming pc and I very rarely play a game with everything cranked up. I'd rather it perform well than sit and drool over shadows and reflections.

- who cares about the graphics?: those who spent hundreds and thousands in hardware.

- If graphics are your #1 priority when looking for a racing game, then a racing simulator is not for you: a still misused argument.

- ... sit and drool over shadows and reflections: unnecessary without suitable high quality ;-)

Although I'm still playing RBR with vintage graphic: it´s 2016, means I expect physics AND graphics according on the current possibilities.

I don't know to many individuals who will drop hundreds of thousands in hardware strictly to make their racing simulator look better. It really doesn't take a beast of a computer to run any racing sim on the market on the highest settings. Besides, rfactor 2 is highly moddable so no one is stopping anyone from modding the game to look better. If you want to gripe at dev's over graphics go gripe at AC or PC. I'm pretty active in iracing as well and most racers there give too hoots less about how the game looks which imo RF2 and iRacing both look amazing on the high end.

I've been pretty active in the competitive gaming scene for going on about 20 years now and I don't know to many competitive gamers that run any game on the highest settings. I typically spend a couple of hours after a game comes out tweaking settings to get the game running right for me and the simulation racing buddies I have are the same way. When it comes to anything competitive, your eyecandy fanboys are the minority.

Sims are built around the idea of creating an environment to practice in. I'm by no means a fan of real life racing and got hooked on racing sims when nascar racing 2 came out but I race with quite a few who do race in real life and graphics are pretty far down their priority list. There's probably some truth to the closer the game looks to real life the better it is for a practice environment. However, I know with many first person competitive shooters your hardcore competitive players will practice on custom maps (with halflife mods and source mods they referred to them as orange maps that have very little to them but bright orange backgrounds) that make the player more visible strictly because it forces players to think more strategically knowing that they're more easily targetted.

[Easton]

http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/new-nola-motorsports-park-rf2-preview.128055

[MatF1]

Publicado originalmente por IvanBshoulder:

so your saying that it isnt a light source projecting in the game world, but instead ISI modeled a burning ball of incandesant gas approx 8 .5 light minutes away from their game world?

ahem...ha ha hah

Not sure how you could come up with that statement from what I said.
A sun system, is a light source, yes!

It also moves across the sky in a mathematical manner, based on time of day, location in the world, altitude and time of year, opposed to the others that simply use a light source.

[*Spike*]

Rf2 is outstanding and if your a real sim racer you would not have posted this in the first place as much as we love great graphics myself included its the setup, ffb , physics and gameplay that come first and Rf2 is top end on this in my opinion. I run it on max and think it looks fantastic. It supports my triple monitors unlike Project Cars but that more arcade I think anyway. I have come from iracing and actually am likeing Rf2 more on the realism feel for the car and how it feels on the road and reacts. No it does not have laser tracks like iRacing and AC but once your used to a circuit you no matter what sim it doesn't take long to get the feel. I have all the above sims or Project Cars I don't class as a sim but it does look pretty I guess. And people moan about the mp subscripton it pennies compared to iRacing, that will only buy you a old car or track in iracing not even a new one. I highly recommend Rf2. If its not looking good for you its your rig maybe needing apgrade or the way you set it up and you need a tidy wheel and pedels you can' t play any racing sim with anything else in my opinion to get the real sim experience.

[metalhead]

RF2 is amazing sim but due to it running on dx9 it is recources hog.
it needs high end gfx cards to look like those screenies you see out there.
Other sims , iracing or AC for exemple achive the same or better preformence and visuals with lot lesser harware.

[Along_22b2]

Meanwhile i heard that ISI sold rf2 to the Norwegians and the Nords first to do list is up rf2 graphic to Dx11..

RD Enduracers Interview.
About Studio397, we are in particular keeping on eye on their progress on the upcoming DX11 engine, to improve the game graphics which is its current weakness.