Assetto corsa ,,,,

simforlife2 said:
HDR OFF all gray and off, Vec had gorgeous graphics
Click to expand...

I crazy one thinks this as well.

Granted I am limited by hardware.

If you don't think no HDR rF2 looks any good how could you have drove anything but Shift and Grid (DX10ers ) for best part of a decade. hehehe

iRacing is closest thing to No HDR rF2 around imho, SCe included Spin. :) Correct me I wrong they all DX9 ?
 
mrsmr2 said:
Accept neither sim has the correct answer and pick and choose combos of cars and tracks that you enjoy in each sim.
Click to expand...

+1

All have good, bad and the ugly. lol ;)

What I like about rF2 is I do not worry about skins as long as I have mine ( too worried about the drive for skins )

AC I delete 1/2 the cars and the other half 90% of skins ( they look pretty plain )

Then you have to rebuild with GBs of custom skins with endless updates ............. then they release a new build and mods/skins don't work anymore without editing. lol


I think AC is what I said years back is still right, the best trackday / purist sim

I am not putting it down saying it is no good for series or leagues etc just I think with road cars is where it excels.
 
Last edited:
DurgeDriven said:
I crazy one thinks this as well.

Granted I am limited by hardware.

If you don't think no HDR rF2 looks any good how could you have drove anything but Shift and Grid (DX10ers ) for best part of a decade. hehehe

iRacing is closest thing to No HDR rF2 around imho, SCe included Spin. :) Correct me I wrong they all DX9 ?
Click to expand...
I don't agree, IRacing doesn't have that grey/flat filter/lense look applied to it. It's very particular to RF2 in my opinion.

Having said that, our monitors are nowhere near close to the brightness of real-life daytime. So maybe RF2 is actually the game that technically does it correct and it's just our hardware (monitors) which aren't up to snuff. That's possible.
 
Last edited:
Spinelli said:
I don't agree, IRacing doesn't have that grey/flat filter/lense look applied to it. It's very particular to RF2 in my opinion.
Click to expand...

No but neither does rF2 with NO HDR :confused: does it ?

I mean I know what others and you talk of, I see it when I enable HDR of a day easy, just look at the sky colour compared to no HDR....yeah greyish bluish whatever, sorry don't see this with NO HDR just blue skies.

But NO HDR is useless at night...... catch22. lol

When Historics and Tracks are all repackaged and if I got a GTX970 would I use HDR ? ...of course I would.

Just how some people go on about NO HDR " Oh I couldn't drive that ! " are the ones need to get a grip. ;)

P.S.

Locking HDR on in rF2 as suggested somewhere above would be a huge mistake imo, then again I know nothing


P.S. Spin...... I meant SCE ( included ) looks as good as iR and rF2 . 3 best DX9
 
Last edited:
DurgeDriven said:
No but neither does rF2 with NO HDR :confused: does it ?

I mean I know what others and you talk of, I see it when I enable HDR of a day easy, just look at the sky colour compared to no HDR....yeah greyish bluish whatever, sorry don't see this with NO HDR just blue skies.

But NO HDR is useless at night...... catch22. lol

When Historics and Tracks are all repackaged and if I got a GTX970 would I use HDR ? ...of course I would.

Just how some people go on about NO HDR " Oh I couldn't drive that ! " are the ones need to get a grip. ;)
Click to expand...

The only thing that worries me while simming is will i be faster than the next guy in the next sector. I DONT LOOK AT THE BLOODY CLOUDS!
 
Nazirull Safry Paijo said:
The only thing that worries me while simming is will i be faster than the next guy in the next sector. I DONT LOOK AT THE BLOODY CLOUDS!
Click to expand...

Well why pick on me I not the one is bothered by it it. ?

All started because I agree with this guy ?

simforlife2 said:
HDR OFF all gray and off, Vec had gorgeous graphics
Click to expand...

I assume Vec stands for virtual endurance cars in rF2 ???

I never complained about anything in rF2 since they fixed my Eves mirrors. lool
 
msportdan said:
i agree but its the "ones we dont speak of" that go to every sim forum and spread their BS about other sims, that get s me.
Click to expand...

I tell you some bs.

Where you see the advantage of tuning / parts gives you in these reviews

Okay I may be out of the loop but the others you get none of this , AC , pCars you drive what you are given ?

It is not just visual and performance parts, you can look at Historics as just a few cars but with Eve, Spark and Howstons you have many tuning combos turns them into many more cars so to speak.

Same as street Corvettes just having the different ratio/finals separate from garage is great.

Isn't that all canned or purely visual in other sims ?

Huge plus in my books.
 
DurgeDriven said:
Same as street Corvettes just having the different ratio/finals separate from garage is great.

Isn't that all canned or purely visual in other sims ?

Huge plus in my books.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this? Can you reformulate pls by going a bit more in depth?
 
QUF said:
What do you mean by this? Can you reformulate pls by going a bit more in depth?
Click to expand...

Well If you look in tuning for a Corvette ZR-1 it has upgrade with a shorter ratio gearbox.

You have Z06-ZR1 spoiler kits ( not sure if they are dynamic )

Honda NSX has different brakes, 4 different gearbox and a automatic

Cobra has rev matched gearbox

F1 Historic has 2 dynamic wing configs and no wings.

I could go on forever ..just look at Dallara .......Nascar :)


AC or pCars I have no such options like these.
 
Not options like that per se, AC does have the S1, S2, Drift, etc... versions of the cars, which are tweaked versions from here and there. Not the same I suppose, but the idea is there, and I do like that method a lot as a drifter.
 
Golanv said:
Not options like that per se, AC does have the S1, S2, Drift, etc... versions of the cars, which are tweaked versions from here and there. Not the same I suppose, but the idea is there, and I do like that method a lot as a drifter.
Click to expand...

No not the same, not by a long shot. ;)

For a modder in AC to have changeable parts on a car you would need another car for each part combo.
ie: Just 2 parts would require 4 cars.

S1/S2 or multi models mods I don't like where I must retain one to have the other (some tracks wont even work dropping a layout )
Examples F40 , M3 , Ford sierra etc etc
I like to run exact cars I want, nothing more rF2 format lets me do that.

What you have in TUNING format is ability for more options then S1 - S2
ISI could make staged power levels for all cars easy.
Some already have them really, like I said Howston



This does not give me much confidence in v1.3 from a guy I respect opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=350&v=bq3_TeF6R60

I liked it, very natural to drive, but honestly I imagined it more "difficult" to handle. how general behavior it's quite similar to the P&G version of GTR2, but with a bit more grip seem and less understeer.
Click to expand...

I can't compare F1-F3 Eve, Cobra Howstons to anything in anything .....let alone PnG hehehe ;)
 
QUF said:
The ford gt40 mk1 isn't an ac cobra 427.
The one modeled in assetto corsa is the #6 from 1969 which won 24h Le Mans, with 372laps completed. It is an endurance car, yes from the middle 60s, but ain't no wild beast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans#Official_results
In this page, the track map at that time is also displayed.
Click to expand...

Probably not the best contrast no, I think he meant in way of general difficulty.

Cobra is in PnG, rF , AC, rF2, compare them then. ;)

Historic F1: AC /pCars Lotus49 and rF2 F1 Eve ( no wing) or BT20 is good enough compare for me.

( I would except a rF2 Lotus49 would be nestled somewhere in between the F1 Eve and BT20 in "agro" lol )

Howston G6 ....hard to compare to anything, full stop. :)

Corvette C6 good compare too.

I find cars with more steering, suspension, lack of tyres and aero is what makes physics so different, for me at least.

P.S.

Honestly like if you asked me about GT3 cars ?
I would be happy driving any of the 3 sims as the cars themselves are more similar in overall feel
and some of the visuals in the other 2 make up more ground to rF2.

But not in Historics nuh :)
 
Last edited:
I don't know why you come up with the attitude that rf2 classic cars can be better than reality. But from other posts, you admitted to like to embezzle the truth. What I'm saying is that rf2 also has a good tyre model, a physical one. Then cars like ac cobra and ford gt40 have wide planted (racing) tires, more the ford than the cobra. An endurance car like the gt40 mk1 in rf2, why would it be difficult to handle? It would suffer the same traits as the real life one.
Saying things like "I imagined it more "difficult" to handle" is very subjective. When you have an idea of how something could be, even more if you never played one in an advanced sim, or in real life, but only in older games from 10-15yo ago, then it turns out something else; I think is wrong from you to base yourself on how realistic AC's ford gt40 is, compared to how someone else imagined this car to be, or experienced it in an older game.

But that's the thing, when we idealize things with the premise that being a mid 60s car will be difficult to drive..well it is difficult to drive, especially at higher speed corners, but if you are doing the proper racing line and mostly just racing endurance in a relatively straight track like LeMans back then, what someone's imagination says shouldn't be used as fact.

And to another point. The rf2 ac cobra has more top speed and power than the cobra 427s/c from AC. The one in rF2, according to its specs used, is more monstrous and the one in AC is tamer; but is still on v4 tyre version. Though the specs used make the difference.


DD, how do you find the corvette c7r? This one should have the same specs, but may have slightly different BOP. Kunos usually applies balance to gt2/e and gt3 cars and maybe not the same between games. But the c7r should be quite equivalent.
 
Difficulty =/= Reality

The Cobra 427 may be the best representation (haven't driven AC's updated version) but I am not the only one to believe there is still something with the tires that brings forth situations that make the virtual world more difficult than real life.

@QUF: The Corvette in rF2 is done by URD, not ISI. In Assetto I believe only the model to be from URD. It's not comparable.
 
C6 Corvette is ISI made, C7 model in AC is URD made, is there a C7 mod in rF2 I don't know.

Not all Historics are hard to drive.
 
Golanv said:
C6 Corvette is ISI made, C7 model in AC is URD made, is there a C7 mod in rF2 I don't know.

Not all Historics are hard to drive.
Click to expand...

Yeah there is one...the URD one...

I find none of the historics "hard" to drive, they communicate tons about the car and it's state/behavior all the time. They drive really well, they just don't have lots of "grip". They are very forgiving too I find, I can get away with a lot in them.
Problem I'd have is when I see people driving them poorly, or overdriving as the case may be, and then complaining that they should have more grip, braking, etc. I haven't tried the AC historics in a while, but I found them lacking "life".

It's where I just get over it and give up, but I also question what I should be doing. None of the cars are hard to drive. They certainly need different tactics to drive them well from car to car, but as soon as you get some practice in and learn it, it is no longer a biggie.
I know before I even hop in the Howston that I have a weird balance between a lot of grip for a vintage race car (depending on the config), and a stonking engine, but very lackluster braking ability. Also, needing to be slid to corner well too, as most of those historics respond well to. I can straight away put that to use in the first corner and start adapting to it. Or I can try and push it too hard and continue to not drive it as it should be driven. Let that engine overpower the chassis
The Cobra, very standard brake setup that is very prone to fade. That kind of thing will end a race if you screw it up, it has caught me out a couple of times for sure. But I saw a couple of people complain about that aspect as being unrealistic. The solution to that is that you just have to temper your desire to push really hard, there is NO other way around that.

This is where I start to wonder a bit though, whether I am actually doing the right thing, haha. I see so many complaints like that, be it the Skippy or the 370Z or the FISI, and I wonder if me going and adapting to each car in a big way is the "wrong" thing. "If I touch certain curbs in the kart, it spins out and I crash", and my response in that situation would be "don't drive over the curbs then, it clearly doesn't work like that/can't handle that".
If you come from a GT3 to a 60's F1 car, course it's going to feel undrivable at first. But any of these cars if driven too hard will feel undriveable. If you apply yourself as a driver/racer, things change quite quickly. When I saw Jensen Button hop into the 888 car and lap Bathurst, he sure as hell didn't apply his F1 car thought process to it. He didn't rip into the first corner and run wide, then cook the rears getting power down and then complain that the thing has no grip at all.


Gah, love a good vent. Need to buy milk and bread and eggs and it's 9pm haha!
 
Wow, what a great car Ferrrari 330 P4. Would be great to have it in rf2.

Back to AC. I think the historic cars in AC are ok.
Its fun to drive to drive them, but you will never find a public MP server with historic cars online with some players.

The major problem with AC is, that only the gt2 and gt3 servers have some players online. All others are nearly empty.
Another mess is, AC servers have very often multi class fields. Driving the Nordschleife with the GTA is fun, but when get hit by Lambo GT3 then is GAME OVER.
Nearly every meeting with another player in AC leads to a crash.

I think their no need to compare different sims from a technical point of view.
I play different sims depending on my personal mood only for one reason: To have fun !
Sometimes I enjoy rf2, gtl (my personal number one game), gpl, h&g, rre, dirt rally, ac and off course Project Cars 1 and 2.
Would be great to have a GT Legends 2 based on rf2 engine :rolleyes:

On Saturday I played rre, rf2 , pcars and ac each for 30 minutes online. Just to compare the online experience.
I get the most crashes in AC. To my personal surprise are the pcars online drivers
more or less fair. The best drivers are in rf2 (for sure :cool:), but on the second is rre.

On the other hand, you will find only in AC every time of the day a public open server with some players online.

The rf2 MP lobby is not very good. Their is no filter function and its hard to find a public server with online players. A lot of servers using a different versions
or mods which I dont have. The download function works only sometimes :mad:
 
Guimengo said:
Difficulty =/= Reality

The Cobra 427 may be the best representation (haven't driven AC's updated version) but I am not the only one to believe there is still something with the tires that brings forth situations that make the virtual world more difficult than real life.

@QUF: The Corvette in rF2 is done by URD, not ISI. In Assetto I believe only the model to be from URD. It's not comparable.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just think cars with more "body wobble" convey what I like about rF2 physics on the whole.

No all Historics are not hard to drive G, F3 is one of the friendliest cars you will ever drive, but she can still bite you. p

I had another go of AC , GT3's at Bathurst, what a disaster and people say 3PA/ISI Ai is bad. hehe
Cars were going over walls everywhere. lol
Few other tracks were better, overall immersion, feel , FFB was good, Ai was still pretty lousy.

rF2 had F3 Bathurst race all well behaved on the whole a few blown engines at 50% damage.

I will give C7 a try QUF


P.S.

I agree RD PnG in rF2 would be huge but David has told us why that won't happen.
 
Oh god, AI in Assetto Corsa is still chaotic. I tried doing a race in Longford with the GT40s but gave up. Like Bathurst it is a mod so it isn't the best thing to compare but even then, I went to (Kunos) Monza and it took me a while to get a race, so much so I brought it down to just 4 laps. However there is a clear distinction in some core game updates, FFB and from the couple of cars I tried, the tires are noticeably different too.

(bonus points for spotting the still-present exorcist moment)

 
I sent you a pm, I never said it was any good, I just said its in rF2, its based on the Howston physics I think.
 
Tuttle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for explaining.

I tell you another thing stuck out last night doing AC / pCars / rF2 Bathurst but I think it also has to do with " real world movement " ?

Heading up Mountain straight I glanced across to the right up the mountain at the trees far away, the radio towers appeared for a moment then moved behind the trees with about 1/2 mast sticking out. So even though it is overlapping it looked seem-less and I could perceive the distance of everything in shot, just great.

I spend a lot of time looking at stuff like this, like sitting along train tracks at Stavelot and watching cars disappear way up the hill as the engines fade away, so surreal you really feel like you are in the scene.

Watching other sims replays or live from these perspectives I feel I am looking in through a window if that makes sense to anyone. p

Like I said maybe it is the expanse of ISI terrain causes this is effect on my mind. weeeee p lol

I have said before for mine other sims tracks I feel I am literally between 2 invisible walls.
 
DurgeDriven said:
Thanks again for explaining.

I tell you another thing stuck out last night doing AC / pCars / rF2 Bathurst but I think it also has to do with " real world movement " ?

Heading up Mountain straight I glanced across to the right up the mountain at the trees far away, the radio towers appeared for a moment then moved behind the trees with about 1/2 mast sticking out. So even though it is overlapping it looked seem-less and I could perceive the distance of everything in shot, just great.

I spend a lot of time looking at stuff like this, like sitting along train tracks at Stavelot and watching cars disappear way up the hill as the engines fade away, so surreal you really feel like you are in the scene.

Watching other sims replays or live from these perspectives I feel I am looking in through a window if that makes sense to anyone. p

Like I said maybe it is the expanse of ISI terrain causes this is effect on my mind. weeeee p lol

I have said before for mine other sims tracks I feel I am literally between 2 invisible walls.
Click to expand...

Guess you are talking about motion parallax.

Could be you feel/see more parallax in rF2 because of missing DOF effects (everything is in focus inside your central vision, as it happens when you are watching real life), as parallax is much more evident between long distances objects VS short distance (motion parallax).

In theory, if I'm right with your thought, that DOF is that wall you are feeling, because it is reducing motion parallax a lot, which is not natural for our vision, and this is much more evident when these DOF effects are not math correct. Our central vision is done by the eye fovea and there everything is sharp and in focus (unless you suffer some eye pathology).

To avoid that feeling you should look at replays like you were watching a TV (where lens are involved) and not like you were there, sitting a chair and looking things.

Of course if you use these effects while driving your eyes fovea will tell your brain that experience is totally fake.
 
Try explaining abt the nature of rF2 graphics to a gamer and ull be dissapointed. They want everything to look like pcars/AC.

And looking at the game thru a camera lens instead

The other day I was doing the poster for our Bathurst race. I took a screenie and get it into photoshop and do some layer blending and motion blur/minor dof. And viola. It looks much better!

895RMGr.jpg


I presume it wont take much for ISI to come up with a filter if they want to but not many understand that ISI is a simulation software company. Not a game dev.
 
Tuttle this describes exactly what I've been trying to explain for a while now. Whilst AC and pCARS have stunning graphics, I can't find it realistic as I feel I'm driving in a photograph. It's fine for replays or screenshots, but when racing it is odd.
 
Nazirull Safry Paijo said:
Try explaining abt the nature of rF2 graphics to a gamer and ull be dissapointed.
Click to expand...

You can try a little game with that gamer;

show him a piece of text, then tell him to read a single word, in the middle of that paragraph. Now, without moving his eyes away from that word, ask him to read 3 or 4 rows under that word (that depends on font size too).

He can't. His fovea is focusing THAT word and few just around it. All the rest will be out of focus. Thanks Lord is like that or we would go nuts if our entire side to side field of view were in focus

Same it will happen with a game output. If you are targeting a corner apex, all the rest will be out of focus, just try now reading that page. :)

So, again, these effects make sense just in a replay mode, when the developer want to simulate a reflex camera (photo mode) and/or a TV cam with prime lens.

If you really need these effects while racing means you are not really focused on your driving performance but you need eyecandy to enjoy the vision... while doing some laps around a movie looking place.

That's my own opinion...of course. :)
 
Personally I don't like bloom, DOF, exaggerated shining and other "gamey" effects. In fact I always turn off these if possible. The fact that rF2 doesn't have these doesn't make the graphics realistic, less "gamey" than others - yes, but still not as realistic as one would expect in 2015 (others being "gamey" doesn't make rF2 graphics realistic).
Personally I do not find rF2 track/environment colors/lightning/shading realistic, looks washed out/flat/grey. It's like "apocalypse" filter is being simulated (historic Monza is a good example). Outside is more colorful and shiny than what rF2 shows. Sky is barely blue with grey tint on it (same as everything else) and often overexposed (even evening time). Thought I must agree that rF2 "up to date" tracks/cars appears to have better quality textures/3D models than AC, however this kind of updated content is minority. For example recently updated cars like GT-R or C6 GT2 still are still lacking graphic wise compared to cars like Dw12, Camaro GT3, Cobra.
 
In pc games you can define a lot of the games graphics by the engine it's using, but since a lot of them allow you to turn stuff on/off and adjust the effect strenghts, it is not only about "that game looks like this", it is becoming more and more about what you make it to look like.

I can easily bring tons of post processing effects to rF2 by merely using sweetFX for example, and make it have dof from hell, but making everything just blurry doesn't make any sense from the point of view of simulation. I would suspect that you would want to see round about what eyes can see, rather than what you see from a TV camera/photo/etc... unless like Tuttle said, you are trying to create a replay that is suppose to look like aforementioned media, hence I do that to the sims I play, including AC and rF2.
 
Tuttle said:
You can try a little game with that gamer;

show him a piece of text, then tell him to read a single word, in the middle of that paragraph. Now, without moving his eyes away from that word, ask him to read 3 or 4 rows under that word (that depends on font size too).

He can't. His fovea is focusing THAT word and few just around it. All the rest will be out of focus. Thanks Lord is like that or we would go nuts if our entire side to side field of view were in focus

Same it will happen with a game output. If you are targeting a corner apex, all the rest will be out of focus, just try now reading that page. :)

So, again, these effects make sense just in a replay mode, when the developer want to simulate a reflex camera (photo mode) and/or a TV cam with prime lens.

If you really need these effects while racing means you are not really focused on your driving performance but you need eyecandy to enjoy the vision... while doing some laps around a movie looking place.

That's my own opinion...of course. :)
Click to expand...
And that's where people sometimes use those effects, in replays. But just sometimes. DOF in AC only works in replay not in the live race. And mostly everyone turns off motion blur, maybe just new players trying it out. As for the other aspects of post processing filters, is more about changing the ambiance, like color temperature, brightness, auto exposure (our eyes also have auto exposure/iso, white balance). Kunos also uses pp effects for some effects like heat shimmering from the cars, and sun rays, because this post processing engine gives them those effects.

This is an image (http://i.imgur.com/LraXmOk.jpg) I took earlier for other purpose, but I can also use it here. I run minimum graphics in AC, and also minimum in the pp effects section. For me, this seems natural and not hollywood sci-fi cgi. So for me these are pretty much optical filters that play with the color temps, brightness, etc. things you also find on your monitor and gpu. Is just to set the ambiance. Of course you can turn off pp effects (http://i.imgur.com/MH17xw3.jpg).
 
dylbie said:
Tuttle this describes exactly what I've been trying to explain for a while now. Whilst AC and pCARS have stunning graphics, I can't find it realistic as I feel I'm driving in a photograph. It's fine for replays or screenshots, but when racing it is odd.
Click to expand...

Made a lot of sense to me too.

I am not using glance or mouse to look only directing my view towards those trees and the orange of the radio masts.

I suddenly get this great perception of the distance up there, I am doing 100mph and the towers rotate slowly behind the strand of trees.

If I do the same in others it looks like you say, more like a nice photograph where you can't determine focal points and distances so well and the 3D effect feels flatter somehow, objects that overlap etc , Tuttle explained it earlier.

I just glad I do not imagine it. p

The atmosphere haze as well creates a vastness to the sky somehow, try Bathurst and Longford at 7-8am in the morning 3x time of day in a open cockpit car.
Even with no HDR still looks great.

The place pCars shines is at night with lighting it gives great perception of distances for mine.

Nothing makes me feel colder then 5am at Longford in LolaT280 ...... lol
 
Nazirull Safry Paijo said:
Try explaining abt the nature of rF2 graphics to a gamer and ull be dissapointed. They want everything to look like pcars/AC.

And looking at the game thru a camera lens instead

The other day I was doing the poster for our Bathurst race. I took a screenie and get it into photoshop and do some layer blending and motion blur/minor dof. And viola. It looks much better!

895RMGr.jpg


I presume it wont take much for ISI to come up with a filter if they want to but not many understand that ISI is a simulation software company. Not a game dev.
Click to expand...

If going those graphics would mean getting more people into rF2 I'm all for it. As long as they don't go extreme like AC... my eyes bleed when I drive it and with PP I can't even look at the screen so I had to uninstall D: (ok performance issue with 1.3 patch helped to take the decision, but not really interested, happy driving SCEx while waiting rF2 on Steam)
The only thing that really gets on my nerves in rF2 is the smoke. Damn that thing is ridiculous xD
 
Will Mazeo said:
The only thing that really gets on my nerves in rF2 is the smoke. Damn that thing is ridiculous xD
Click to expand...

Smoke is not thaaaat bad,- (puffy puffy ;) )you should see the rainspray!! That´s ridiculous!! :mad: When steam-kiddies see this they laugh theyre little arses off!
Tons of thumbs down this will get.
 
Last edited:
peterchen said:
Smoke is not thaaaat bad,- you should see the rainspray!! That´s ridiculous!! :mad: When steam-kiddies see this they laugh theyre little arses off!
Tons of thumbs down this will get.
Click to expand...

Should ISI reevaluate their priorities because of Steam kiddies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
hexagramme said:
Should ISI reevaluate their priorities because of Steam kiddies?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

honestly, kiddies will look at the price and some youtube vids...they wont be impressed.
Wut i think is more possible with steam is 'invite' and 'join'. also broadcast?
 
peterchen said:
Smoke is not thaaaat bad,- (puffy puffy ;) )you should see the rainspray!! That´s ridiculous!! :mad: When steam-kiddies see this they laugh theyre little arses off!
Tons of thumbs down this will get.
Click to expand...

and because the "kiddies" vote rF2 down, does this happen to change your opinion of rF2 and how much/less you enjoy it?

You also ASSume that Steam has "kiddies" on.... check some stats buddy, I'm sure that the majority of Steam users aren't kids.
 
Nazirull Safry Paijo said:
... but not many understand that ISI is a simulation software company. Not a game dev.
Click to expand...

Not many understand because most people think there is no contradiction between the term game and sim including ISI. To quote Tim "Our sim is a sim; Our sim is a game."
 
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Be it labeled a sim or a video game it is still what it is - a product they are trying to sell to as many people as possible. Title is important to some and others could care less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top