Post your Screenshots!

Some more.....

GRAB_034.jpg

GRAB_033.jpg

GRAB_023.jpg

GRAB_016.jpg

GRAB_005.jpg
 
I've changed my name on facebook since I have connected profile of the forum with it so it should update soon into "Przemyslaw Drozdzik"

Big thanks for the comments about my shots. Indeed dirt and smoke effects with Vette shots were added in photoshop since I wanted to put some more realism into rFactor.
I'm very glad that you enjoy my work. It is some kind of dream "How do I see rFactor 2" ;)

Here are some more shots for u:

lagu1.png


lada1.png


hillc3.png


vette7.png
 
@K Szcech
Looks great, I'll try it tomorrow.
I'm curious to know how this looks in motion.
 
I've made a patch for Mustang mod that fixes some graphical issues: LINK

Note that this patch is meant for our race, so I also changed tyre heating (which is very weird in original mod) for Dunlop_GT and Pirelli_NGT used in GT500 and Saleen. If you don't want these changes then just take .mas files and updated .gen file for safety car from this patch.
 
Last edited:
Allright, I removed the link and restricted access to file to our members.

I've sent you another link on PM if you wish to check out this update.
 
As some of you may allready know, I've been working on shaders with dynamic, non-linear exposition function to allow more intense lighting in scenes.
It's not exactly HDR, but does the job quite well actually.

I'm curently in the phase of tweaking things, so these shaders should be available soon in Shader Pack v0.9. In the meantime I'll focus on releasing v0.8 ASAP.



Screens are of course unedited.
 
Last edited:
@K Szczech,
I wonder if the stuff you're doing is something extraordinary or something every videogame-developer could have known.
I'm sure you're not the only one in the game-industy who's trying to implement the laws of physics (in a graphical way), but you seem to have come up with ways to make it work like our real world instead of faking it with the 'HDR and bloom' thing.
The often heard argument (on racing-sim sites/forums) is that is unreasonable for ISI to make rF2 look like the best looking videogame, just because they have a small team of developers.
But you show us that one person (with the right knowledge) can achieve more realistic graphics than some of the big companies with their fake overlays, maybe not (yet) realistic in a photo-realistic way, but realistic being all dynamic and according the way light really works.
If only ISI could hire you...
 
I wonder if the stuff you're doing is something extraordinary or something every videogame-developer could have known.
Click to expand...
Believe me - it's far from extraordinary :)

It's mostly about getting things right where it matters, not about creating something complex and more advanced.


EDIT:
The often heard argument (on racing-sim sites/forums) is that is unreasonable for ISI to make rF2 look like the best looking videogame, just because they have a small team of developers.
Click to expand...
Yes, I completely disagree with argument of team size.
Hovewer, there's argument of company's profile. Just like with anything else, making good graphics requires some experience in that area. Think of all the years ISI or iRacing took to get to the point where they are now with physics. Think of all the research done.

It's easier with graphics beacause we can all see the world every day with our own eyes. However think of all the people who have different opinions on WIP screenshots - who is right and who is wrong?

There's also a matter of approach.
One will look upon racetrack, see rubber on best line and make dark marks on asphalt in his virtual track. Someone else will look at that rubber at different angles and notice that rubberized asphalt reflects sunlight better and will add that effect, too.
Someone will notice that not just sunlight is reflected, but blue light coming from the sky aswell (why not? it's a light after all).

Someone will look at shadow and think of it as some darker area in the scene, but someone else will look at it and see it as an area that is not reached by sunlight in straight line. So it's not simply darker, it's just not lit by directional light at all, but is fully lit by ambient light.

Someone will make sunlight white in rFactor, and ambient grey. Someone else will keep in mind that red light penetrates atmosphere better while blue gets scattered and make directional light slightly yellow, while making ambient light slightly blue.
Someone will make ambient light almost equally strong to directional light, someone else will make directional light 3 times stronger.
Someone else will notice that ambient light is not equally strong in all directions...

And so on... You don't realize all these things in "one moment of enlightment" :) You learn them one by one, from observations, or from articles available on the internet. It takes time.


So, as you can see it's not about the manpower of a company at all. I really appreciate the effort ISI is making now with rFactor's rendering engine, but I have no illusions they will make some mistakes. That's what happens when you do something for the first time - you make mistakes, you misunderstand things, etc., and ISI had no reason to do years-spanning research in computer graphics like they do with physics.

It's hard for me to tell from WIP screenshots, which features are "implemented properly" and which are just "not properly implemented yet". When rF2 is out I'll know all that and will be able to provide some feedback or develop some updates.
 
Last edited:
Looks like you've had to dumb down the existing shader to fit in the light calculations to me. There's only so many instructions you can have in PS2_0.
 
Standard ISI shaders had enough margin to add required changes. As for my own shaders from shader pack - my editor precalculates fresnel and specular functions into "Shading.....tga" textures. This way shader doesn't have to calculate these which saved enough instructions.
I had to battle for that final instruction slot on a few occasions. I've sacrificed a bit of bumpmapping accuracy but it will be next to impossible to see the difference.

The worst one was the new road shader and there were moments where I thought I will have to give up one feature or two, but it didn't come to that.
The hardest part will now be finding good fresnel and specular parameters for new road shader (a total of 16 values :) ) I need to get it right myself, before I can show others how to get the most out of it.
 
Last edited:
i prefer currently enb.series to force lighting and colors...it's very powerful for tweak pretty much everything what comes to graphics..only sky is the limit or your pc power..lol

GRAB_011.png
[/url][/IMG]

GRAB_138.png
[/url][/IMG]
 
Both methods have their merits and both should be done by default in the exe with out causing huge fps loss and not by work arounds. But we have what we have :)
 
im not sure if advertising is allowed but we have topic named "lighting and sun blend angles" over f1classic..where you can find more about those enb settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top