Assetto corsa ,,,,

MarcG said:
Sorry Tuttle but I don't see you mention physics above apart from in this post, your initial response was to RaceDoedel where he clearly talks about other aspects of other Sims which is when I chimed in :)

Good to know you meant physics though, of that part I agree!
Click to expand...

This entire thread is about AC physics. Thought it was clear...sorry if I wasn't. :eek:

PS: and I will never get why people post here about AC physics. But that's me...:p
 
Haha that's ok no worries, I never get why people who don't play AC are the ones mainly posting in this thread :p
 
Better to copy real life than other games.... I mean, all these sims are supposed to simulating real life are they not?

If you copy someone else, then you are behind... innovate by making things unique.
 
Copying a simulation of real life to make a simulation of real life ?? There is no spoon :p
 
Woodee said:
Better to copy real life than other games.... I mean, all these sims are supposed to simulating real life are they not?

If you copy someone else, then you are behind... innovate by making things unique.
Click to expand...

Missed my point but ok then, quite obvious RF2 can be improved upon in certain areas where other Sims have excelled, no harm in trying to do and then improve upon that, every other game genre does it, why shouldn't the sim racing genre?
 
MarcG said:
Missed my point but ok then, quite obvious RF2 can be improved upon in certain areas where other Sims have excelled, no harm in trying to do and then improve upon that, every other game genre does it, why shouldn't the sim racing genre?
Click to expand...

If everyone did things the same way, things would be BOOOOORRRRIIIING :)

I wasn't quoting you in my previous post btw ;)
 
Last edited:
" I am not listening to you Jeffery"
Click to expand...
so you wasting your breath.

Seems no one took Tim's advice year back and put me on ignore lists after all.

But I did. loool p

----------


Tuttle why don't you go and tell RD and their fanboys not to post bs like this in another sims articles.

http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/ozv8-mod-to-no-longer-be-made-for-stock-car-extreme.111846/

whilst the newer Assetto Corsa and rFactor 2 titles are still in a extended (perpetual?) beta phase
Click to expand...


Beta !
What a hide. lol
 
MarcG said:
Missed my point but ok then, quite obvious RF2 can be improved upon in certain areas where other Sims have excelled, no harm in trying to do and then improve upon that, every other game genre does it, why shouldn't the sim racing genre?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed but ISI don't need to lurk competitors when it comes to physics, AIs, FFB and dynamic things. That's 90% of a sim goal.

Believe me I'm not biased at all...but when you say "other Sims have excelled" I really struggle to focus on these "other"... unless you don't mean visuals, postfx and shaders...which is not SIM related. The only one I can think is iRacing when it comes to MP but that's a completely different business model/product/service.... so, again, comparisons like that are useless.

Graphics and eyecandy are just something on top of that and btw it's not something you need to copy from someone else. It's just a matter of updating codes, using modern libraries and shaders etc.. Everything it's a matter of product choices and priorities.

I'm not saying anything against the concept to grow... but I really think you need to target your own goal if you want your product to be unique.
 
DurgeDriven, are you telling me that all it took was Tuttle to say:
I said in my opinion physics comparison between different products are pointless. That's it. Have fun comparing.
Click to expand...
PS: and I will never get why people post here about AC physics. But that's me...:p
Click to expand...
...to get you to change from AC/rF2 physics comparison to graphics comparison?!?
Tuttle why couldn't you have said that two years ago!? :confused: :(

murky look!?
...it must be those beer bottle bottoms you got for glasses.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5800/21434849163_8cb4e38077_k.jpg
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8608/16648383570_961d0ba651_h.jpg
http://www.image-share.com/upload/3055/55.jpg


In other news, since you are now banned by Lord Kunos himself, does this mean that rF2 is again the king of the hill msportdan?
Praise ISI/rF2, play for a week, get bored, criticize ISI/rF2, jump to AC, rinse and repeat, back to rF2... classic.
It's all about which camp you talk to that decides for you what you like that week... oh who am I kidding, what ever floats your boat man. :rolleyes:

MarcG said:
Haha that's ok no worries, I never get why people who don't play AC are the ones mainly posting in this thread :p
Click to expand...
And if people are so bloody keen to talk about Assetto Corsa around here, why not just talk about it, rather than just give the same three years old bs speech.

On a general note:
Most of these dodos running the tally on which game has what, and who supports the most realistic endeavour to replicate a motor vehicle, have totally missed the point of sim racing.
It actually is (believe it or not) to Race in a Simulated Virtual Enviroment. If you are trying to rekindle or create an actual racing career by sitting behind a computer screen arquing about games, you are doing it Wrong!!


Finally, couple sentences about the actual original topic. :rolleyes:
AC 1.3. Very nice and interesting update.
Loving the new cars, especially the Gt40. Can't really describe the driving feel with anything exhaustive yet, but the tyre model just took some steroids, and lap after lap the whole thing feels mesmerizing.
AI @100% kicked my ass, literally they were kicking the car, but I figured it's better to drive with them, than be run over by them, and after some adjustment to the percentage, AI racing was smooth as butter... while still some of them mofo's crazy (I learned that from my wife, she from States :eek:) dive bombing me without a working spotter.
All in all, great fun!
 
Last edited:
Tuttle said:
That's not my territory LOL! :D
Click to expand...

At least they included AC with it this time ! lol

Seriously .......

I know I must sound stupid people don't get what I mean, I can't relate what I see.

The ambiance those Hondas they stand out more, they have a real solid look to them.

In other sims ambiance seems like a veil covers the screen, it looks nice but it does not distinct between light and dark objects or surface reflection from different materials.

Somehow the lighting system breathes life, I dunno....... :( lol




Same as clouds I be the first to say ISI clouds are not the best but in the sky they really overlap you can sense the depth and breadth.

When you come up over rise at Longford you get this feeling you are so tiny under this huge sky. lol

When I look at a head-on shot of AC sky I see "Rex" lovely cloud patterns but no mass to it ( done a lot miles in ORBX/REX . for mine it has that flat 2D feeling as well )
http://www.rexsimulations.com/texturedirectsc.html
 
Last edited:
Lighting and all that it entails, is very good and looks realistic in rF2, I really like the ambiance you're talking about DD, and the immersion that comes with it.
rF2 graphics engine is at it's best from the cockpit.
 
DurgeDriven said:
At least they included AC with it this time ! lol

Seriously .......

I know I must sound stupid people don't get what I mean, I can't relate what I see.

The ambiance those Hondas they stand out more, they have a real solid look to them.

In other sims ambiance seems like a veil covers the screen, it looks nice but it does not distinct between light and dark objects or surface reflection from different materials.

Somehow the lighting system breathes life, I dunno....... :( lol




Same as clouds I be the first to say ISI clouds are not the best but in the sky they really overlap you can sense the depth and breadth.

When you come up over rise at Longford you get this feeling you are so tiny under this huge sky. lol

When I look at a head-on shot of AC sky I see "Rex" lovely cloud patterns but no mass to it.
Click to expand...

That's mainly because the absence of heavy post effects on top of the image and through the Z buffer and because the different graphic engine. About clouds AC is behind us in terms of weather enviro as we are behind pCARS. No secrets here. :)

gMotor has many limits but I do agree it has a more solid and crispy & dry look, which has pros and cons btw... this engine needs to extract more "power" from assets quality (tricount/resolution/details/shader settings) because you can't hide things with fat Post FX pipelines. Every asset rendered by actual gMotor is raw, bare and naked. We could say gMotor is more like a naked eye than a sensor+lens+lens aberration+movie effects. Not talking about shader power, just talking about raw output and histograms. :)

BTW, I do like PostFx when they are realistic and applied just to replay and/or photo mode...which means when they try to simulate a lens depth of field, where the boke is a consequence of a basic math, instead just a ton of blur behind subjects. I really dislike when these effects are overdone, making shots looking like tilt&shift pictures...or like macro shots of micro machines.
 
Tuttle said:
gMotor has many limits but I do agree it has a more solid and crispy & dry look..... Every asset rendered by actual gMotor is raw, bare and naked. We could say gMotor is more like a naked eye than a sensor+lens+lens aberration+movie effects.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I always keep refining the PP.ini for AC without any of the aberration, DoF, After Image, Ghost, etc... not only does it save the precious frames per second, but also gives no bs, sharp, "naked eye" image.
I have another "just for fun" PP.ini for the occational replay with the TV experience, but that's all I use it for.
 
Firstly Golanv I will ignore your commet about me jumping form sim to sim , because how much it does frustrate me and I'm forever questioning each of these sims.. Your rights its annoying lol.. I'm trying to be better by sticking with a sim and riding it out. Theres just too muchchoice for me and OCD that's a badthing!

Secondly regarding rf2s visuals, there is one effect I would like to see, and that is a DOF blur very slightly in the distance, si things don't looks so sharp. and I think that's all rf2 needs.
 
Golanv said:
Lighting and all that it entails, is very good and looks realistic in rF2, I really like the ambiance you're talking about DD, and the immersion that comes with it.
rF2 graphics engine is at it's best from the cockpit.
Click to expand...

I guess it can depend on what cars you drive as well, open cockpit especially Historics where your view is less impeded.

I have a feeling the knowledge that rF2 is expansive/ free roam is in my subconscious as well.

Spare a thought for me , I use NO HDR, mainly because of Historic content and a bit for performance.

But Cop chases at Longford / Night I always run it no matter the hit.

Night is the same, can't put my finger on it I use Longford again only because it conveys the feeling so well.

While it is a fantastic track it is not on the same " eye candy" level so many people here talk about to distinguish other sims.

Would Longford look better in pCars ? probably .........would it drive better ? not in a 1,000,000 years. p

I get so wound up in the Longford ambiance, I honestly feel the cold, where say PCars in Lotus @ Cadwell in thunderstorm, I don't feel anything, it just looks great....
 
msportdan said:
Firstly Golanv I will ignore your commet about me jumping form sim to sim , because how much it does frustrate me and I'm forever questioning each of these sims.. Your rights its annoying lol...
Click to expand...

I agree 101% with your RD / SCe/ V8 fiasco comment mate.


lopl ;)


Tim would never let 'dis happen. p


P.S. I agree with you on that DOF thingie for rF3/DXxx ................
 
msportdan said:
Firstly Golanv I will ignore your commet about me jumping form sim to sim , because how much it does frustrate me and I'm forever questioning each of these sims.. Your rights its annoying lol.. I'm trying to be better by sticking with a sim and riding it out. Theres just too muchchoice for me and OCD that's a badthing!
Click to expand...

That is the whole point!!! You don't have to choose one over the other and "ride it out", play what you play, comment what you comment, but it doesn't have to be a jump from communist party to democrat party, a sex change operation, or any other ridiculous pun, everytime you feel something is off in a game.
When you hit the immovable object, go around it and play one of the other games you might enjoy, you don't have to make an exit with a bang everytime.
 
DurgeDriven said:
I guess it can depend on what cars you drive as well, open cockpit especially Historics where your view is less impeded.

I have a feeling the knowledge that rF2 is expansive/ free roam is in my subconscious as well.

Spare a thought for me , I use NO HDR, mainly because of Historic content and a bit for performance.

But Cop chases at Longford / Night I always run it no matter the hit.

Night is the same, can't put my finger on it I use Longford again only because it conveys the feeling so well.

While it is a fantastic track it is not on the same " eye candy" level so many people here talk about to distinguish other sims.

Would Longford look better in pCars ? probably .........would it drive better ? not in a 1,000,000 years. p

I get so wound up in the Longford ambiance, I honestly feel the cold, where say PCars in Lotus @ Cadwell in thunderstorm, I don't feel anything, it just looks great....
Click to expand...

I do love the Longford in rF2, and the AC conversion with historic cars in each.
I do not use the HDR either, I did spend 12 hours piddling with rF2, reshader, sweetfx and everything else that I could come up with, and I always returned to the default for the frames, and was actually very pleased with the looks of it as well. I just can affort to lose too many frames to eye candy with 770 GTX @5760x1080.
I am one of those folks who have no need for polished looks, but I do appreciate the realistic look, which to me comes more from the lighting rather than if there is a lonely pixel looking for another.
Besides, rF2 benefits nicely from CSAA from nVidia inspector in that regard, so I'm golden.
 
msportdan said:
Firstly Golanv I will ignore your commet about me jumping form sim to sim , because how much it does frustrate me and I'm forever questioning each of these sims.. Your rights its annoying lol.. I'm trying to be better by sticking with a sim and riding it out. Theres just too muchchoice for me and OCD that's a badthing!

Secondly regarding rf2s visuals, there is one effect I would like to see, and that is a DOF blur very slightly in the distance, si things don't looks so sharp. and I think that's all rf2 needs.
Click to expand...

DOF on a replay? Yeah, adds to the TV effect, so long as the "focus" is on the right things. A good thing
In game? Heck no, I never understand it in say a shooter game. It has to assume I'm always looking where the cross-hair is...which I'm not, so suddenly I can't see crap because it decides to blur everything else out.

I look out at the mountains here, and they look slightly hazy from the atmosphere. But they are "crisp" as it were.

And I agree with Golanv...you don't need to justify everything, I don't care what you play, just don't post up one week how something is unmatched, then the next week, it's crap. XD
 
Golanv said:
I do love the Longford in rF2, and the AC conversion with historic cars in each.
I do not use the HDR either, I did spend 12 hours piddling with rF2, reshader, sweetfx and everything else that I could come up with, and I always returned to the default for the frames, and was actually very pleased with the looks of it as well. I just can affort to lose too many frames to eye candy with 770 GTX @5760x1080.
I am one of those folks who have no need for polished looks, but I do appreciate the realistic look, which to me comes more from the lighting rather than if there is a lonely pixel looking for another.
Besides, rF2 benefits nicely from CSAA from nVidia inspector in that regard, so I'm golden.
Click to expand...

If you don't run HDR you're not running the game as it's intended to be run, every texture color will look wrong. Recently with tools like gJED released track artists work with HDR environment only, they put no time tweaking the textures for SDR. I wouldn't actually be surprised if the option to turn it off is soon gone as it causes much confusion.
 
stonec said:
If you don't run HDR you're not running the game as it's intended to be run, every texture color will look wrong. Recently with tools like gJED released track artists work with HDR environment only, they put no time tweaking the textures for SDR. I wouldn't actually be surprised if the option to turn it off is soon gone as it causes much confusion.
Click to expand...



lol

When Historics content gets back to look like it used to count me in.



 
Minibull, your Mountains don't look crisp compared to something 5 feet away from you or 100 feet, or 1000 ft, etc. Unless you aren't human or are a super human then things blur slightly more and more then further they are away from you :)

Post processsing adds input lag as it is calculated after the image has already been rendered and is ready to be sent to the monitor so that's why I disable it and don't use aything like SweetFX. If it's possible to apply distance DOF (not camera lense DOF) as part of the initial render procesa rather than a post-render-process then I will gladly use it while driving as I think distance based DOF/blur is actully one of the rare, non-gimmicky and realistic types of effects.

My opinion is that RF2 still has a very flatish, super low contrast, everything-is-greyish sort of look to it still. The lighting, shadows, etc. look flat with no contrast or very, very high gamma or something. Basically everything looks like there is a grey filter/tint applied on top. I think RF2 b49 or b6x was the last time this weird, global grey tint/filter to everything was not there.

There is currently a bug when using multiview where the HDR changes while watching a reply as you toggle on/off the replay controls and laptime bar at the bottom (been happening a few builds now). You'll notice that the HDR mode it switches to (the wrong one) actually has much more depth and contrast/"pop" than the correct one. You guys should try it and take a long. The wrong HDR mode has issues like blacking out some signs and stuff but you can see it looks much better and just needs some touching up. I wonder if ISI has looked into this bug (it also oggles multiview on/off)? The bug shows a real nice HDR which has much more depth/pop and looks more like a modern game. I highly recommend to check it out.
 
" annnnndddddd................ you took the words right out of my mouth"

p

Spinelli said:
I think RF2 b49 or b6x was the last time this weird, global grey tint/filter to everything was not there.
Click to expand...

See pics above b60x.

;)

Even the Smiths gauges glass glinted in the sunlight back then..... lovely ( canned or not )

atm looks like no glass.
 
Spinelli said:
I think RF2 b49 or b6x was the last time this weird, global grey tint/filter to everything was not there.
Click to expand...

ISI changed the lighting system in build 068-069. From that point the default material settings didn't work anymore (no specular reflection, very weak fresnel reflection). The problem is nobody adjusted the materials to work with the "new" lighting. The only modder I know who recognized this and created his own settings was feels3.
 
Golanv said:
I do love the Longford in rF2, and the AC conversion with historic cars in each.
Click to expand...

Yeah ?

You feel the same things in terrain in AC, I never did and woochoo thought the conversion was pretty ordinary from all accounts.

He never got a chance to look at it first, etc.

Unless it has been updated since of course, travesty if it was left as v.086 was it ?

I asked and emailed JN /Duc /RM and a few others if they interested to do HD version for AC of v1.00 , whether they contacted woo I don't know.

(I asked woochoo prior if it was okay to seek someone to do a better job of it. )

and I suppose to be a fanboy...go figure.

P.S.

I know one thing for sure he won't dole out permission for v1.00 as easy.
 
Last edited:
Spinelli said:
Minibull, your Mountains don't look crisp compared to something 5 feet away from you or 100 feet, or 1000 ft, etc. Unless you aren't human or are a super human then things blur slightly more and more then further they are away from you :)
Click to expand...

Yup, exactly, and that is already covered in the sim, you see that distance "haze" to things as they are further away. I don't mean crisp as in I can see each leaf on the trees ontop of the mountain, but that they don't turn into a massive mushy mess because the game decided I should be focusing on the trackside fence infront of the mountain.
But to have these ridiculous DOF blur effects?? Nah, it looks crap to my eyes outside of replays and screenshot modes.

1DyAyW5.jpg


GRAB_544.jpg
 
In RF2 you only get the haze effect you don't get the blur effect that eyes have. If I'm not mistaken, the haze effect is from the air/environment while the blur effect is from our eyes as things loose sharpness more and more further they are from us.
 
Spinelli said:
In RF2 you only get the haze effect you don't get the blur effect that eyes have. If I'm not mistaken, the haze effect is from the air/environment while the blur effect is from our eyes as things loose sharpness more and more further they are from us.
Click to expand...

You must be short-sighted :p

An object 20m away won't give you any resolution advantages over an object 2km away, except for haze and the obvious fact it appears smaller (lol). Same as a camera really, 'infinity' focus is hardly any different to 10m focus.
 
Tuttle said:
Yes indeed but ISI don't need to lurk competitors when it comes to physics, AIs, FFB and dynamic things. That's 90% of a sim goal.

Believe me I'm not biased at all...but when you say "other Sims have excelled" I really struggle to focus on these "other"... unless you don't mean visuals, postfx and shaders...which is not SIM related. The only one I can think is iRacing when it comes to MP but that's a completely different business model/product/service.... so, again, comparisons like that are useless.

Graphics and eyecandy are just something on top of that and btw it's not something you need to copy from someone else. It's just a matter of updating codes, using modern libraries and shaders etc.. Everything it's a matter of product choices and priorities.

I'm not saying anything against the concept to grow... but I really think you need to target your own goal if you want your product to be unique.
Click to expand...

I mean as a Sim in general, the whole package not just the physics/ffb side of things, after all at the end of the day you're making a game and where other sims have excelled (Menu/UI/championships/careers/in race HUDs etc - all subjective of course!) is where there is "no harm" in seeing how they've done things and doing it better yourselves.
Again every game genre does this so I see no reason to believe that ISI hide in their cave and never ever notice what the other sim companies are doing ;) But if you do that then ok, carry on :)
 
Spinelli said:
My opinion is that RF2 still has a very flatish, super low contrast, everything-is-greyish sort of look to it still. The lighting, shadows, etc. look flat with no contrast or very, very high gamma or something. Basically everything looks like there is a grey filter/tint applied on top. I think RF2 b49 or b6x was the last time this weird, global grey tint/filter to everything was not there.
Click to expand...

+1
Basically the main things that I don't like about rF2 graphics - low contrast/flat colors with what looks like grey filter on top of it, which makes whole picture to look dull despite having relatively good 3d models/textures.
 
DurgeDriven said:
Yeah ?

You feel the same things in terrain in AC, I never did and woochoo thought the conversion was pretty ordinary from all accounts.

He never got a chance to look at it first, etc.

Unless it has been updated since of course, travesty if it was left as v.086 was it ?

I asked and emailed JN /Duc /RM and a few others if they interested to do HD version for AC of v1.00 , whether they contacted woo I don't know.

(I asked woochoo prior if it was okay to seek someone to do a better job of it. )

and I suppose to be a fanboy...go figure.

P.S.

I know one thing for sure he won't dole out permission for v1.00 as easy.
Click to expand...

No, it's not as good as rF2 version. I like the track and how it looks like, but it hasn't got the love that rF2 version has.
It has some oddities to it, you can't flatspot tires there for example, which is just odd. I do hope that a proper conversion will be made eventually from the v1.0, it is fantastic piece of work.
 
unknwn said:
+1
Basically the main things that I don't like about rF2 graphics - low contrast/flat colors with what looks like grey filter on top of it, which makes whole picture to look dull despite having relatively good 3d models/textures.
Click to expand...
+1 back, lol
 
unknwn said:
+1
Basically the main things that I don't like about rF2 graphics - low contrast/flat colors with what looks like grey filter on top of it, which makes whole picture to look dull despite having relatively good 3d models/textures.
Click to expand...

+2
 
Controversial point of the day: I like both rF2 and AC.

AC's 1.3 update has improved it significantly. FFB is actually very decent in a number of cars now.

Msportdan, embrace them both. Accept neither sim has the correct answer and pick and choose combos of cars and tracks that you enjoy in each sim.
 
unknwn said:
+1
Basically the main things that I don't like about rF2 graphics - low contrast/flat colors with what looks like grey filter on top of it, which makes whole picture to look dull despite having relatively good 3d models/textures.
Click to expand...

rF2 would improve much by having a gamma and saturation slider. Not every monitor can be calibrated for gamma, hence why lot of games now provide it and it has been wished for rF2 as well for long. Saturation is too low since the HDR update, for some reason many ISI tracks use desaturated textures when there is little need to desaturate anything with the updated HDR.
 
I think AC sucks. If I didn't have a life I'd probably hang out on their forums to keep telling them that and defending rF2 or other games that I like if someone were to speak badly about them, but fortunately I do have a life. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top