F2Chump
Some of you may know that whilst i consider rf2 a sim, I'm critical of many of the cars, that said, the skippy isn't one of them, it's easily one of the best sim cars and won't tolerate amateur drivers.
Satangoss
Lol! I liked the soundtrack, it probably matches the disappointment of who was trying to manage the league. But it's fixed now as far as I know. No hopes for pCars be fixed somehow.
Satangoss
Yeap but dumb driving is the best choice to prove your physics system.
Sheesh man look where you were middle of track almost.
Gee like anyone knows pCars knows to give Ai as much room as you can " initially " ........then they won't run into you.
I never have accidents like that in pCars ......... just dumb driving, sorry
Jamie Shorting
PRC Steve
I invested heavily in some serious Sim Racing equipment in anticipation of pcars release.... Wii U are not cheap
Satangoss
It's not about fanboys. I'm willing to bet most players/drivers are unbiased and just want the best with no loyalty to any company/developer. But I'm telling you "straight-up", PCars is not a sim in the sense that RF2, GSCE, and IR strive to be. The dynamics are fun, yes, they're not arcade, not at all, but they're simplistic compared RF2, GSCE, and IR, let-alone real life.
It's probably easier for some to notice this in the rain. The car dynamics in the rain are more obvious proof of this "videogame trying to be fairly realistic" type of dynamics rather than "hardcore to real-life as possible".
I've driven F2000s in the rain at Mosport , and F1600s in the rain at Infineon Raceway (Sears Point), and trust me, the driving dynamics in PCars are extremely simplistic. Trust me.
This type of "videogame-ish" vehicle behavior in PCars can also be easy and clearly seen with the karts It's more like a light-weight car than a proper kart. You steer the kart into and throughout the corners like a car not an actual kart. And GSCE does not have as advanced an overall physics engine as RF2, yet GSCE displays better kart dynamics than PCars, so it's not all down to RF2's relatively advanced physics engine, but rather just the ISI physics engine in general.
The overall vehicle dynamics (compared to RF2, GSCE, IR, let alone real-life) are simplified and not a "true", "proper" sim. Again though, I still really enjoy the game, it's EASILY realistic enough for me to enjoy
+1 and a highlight for the kart statement, it shows precisely how silly the physics are.
For the people (like most of us) that are used to more complex sims as rF2: pCars fools you at beginning. I'm a SMS-Full Member since the very beginning of development and this bad sensation was becoming solid more and more as the new builds have been launched.
You make some laps and think "wow, this thing is nice", and then you start to push, push... and your lap times go improving forever in an unrealistic way as you use more track room and car grip. The transition between different surfaces are so forgiving (kerbs, put on wheel in the grass, cement, etc), the suspension reactions are so poor that after some time you cannot get excited anymore.
But I understand that initial enjoyment.
DurgeDriven
No mate
You are fooled thinking people like me are fooled.
yusupov
thats interesting, & i appreciate you meeting us halfway
. what you say has been a key concern of mine since initially playing. i do enjoy it very much, & i do find it quite believable, but compared to any other current sim its definitely very forgiving, theres just no getting past that. i think the way theyve done grip is interesting, i think tweaked ffb is great, etc but i do have the concern it could be exploited by more skilled drivers or even by myself perhaps if i were to be more adventurous.msportdan
I do agree with the subject of it being forgiving. Just did a m1 retro at spa, does a.bmw m1 grip like a dtm?!? Sure does in pcars. It's was hella fun, and the bump ai caused frustration but as a getaway from rf with a interesting career it ok.
DurgeDriven
I like how M1 drives in pCars.
If I drive pCars and AC like track day better it feels, get on the ragged edge less believable it is.
rF2, more you push brings out the best.
Detractors believe we don't know the difference which is plain arrogance and deserves the contempt it receives. lol
DurgeDriven
Ken Barlow
well fwiw..ive played it for a fair few hours. both the final version and previous versions
bug that existed in the gtr/gtr2 series /previous/old engines still exists :-I ..blow an engine.... it will be blown for the entire replay.
ive not tinkered graphically yet... but seems to run fine with 7870 paired with 4690k and 8gigddr3
i also have the pleasure of using a dfgt(g25 wheel died) with the g25 pedals and shifter.
seems to me be more forgiving than say rf2 or iracing.but not arcade - maybe sort of project gotham / forza/ gran turismo.
although saying that my son(14) could be a second or lower off my time at brands in a lotus..until i use the clutch and shifter. in rfactor2 he struggles to complete a lap.
bug that existed in the gtr/gtr2 series /previous/old engines still exists :-I ..blow an engine.... it will be blown for the entire replay.
ive not tinkered graphically yet... but seems to run fine with 7870 paired with 4690k and 8gigddr3
i also have the pleasure of using a dfgt(g25 wheel died) with the g25 pedals and shifter.
seems to me be more forgiving than say rf2 or iracing.but not arcade - maybe sort of project gotham / forza/ gran turismo.
although saying that my son(14) could be a second or lower off my time at brands in a lotus..until i use the clutch and shifter. in rfactor2 he struggles to complete a lap.
Juergen-BY
Thats fine, isn`t it? Maybe...one day...he take 2 seconds off your time with rF2. Mission completed
Ken Barlow
lol never!
Denstjiro
Ken's son: 'challenge accepted!'
Noel Hibbard
Noel Hibbard
only "Real Life = Real life" pal
enjoy and what you like, I like both btw, get online and have some fun, or get on a real track and really have some fun...roll on my next track day, rfactor2 and pCars will do for filling in between the real stuff
You hit the nail on the head. Nothing will ever compare to the real thing. Not in my life time anyways.
Racefreak1976
On a side note: There are some physicists out there who claim real life is just another sim or virtual reality.
It is a real shame really, I was kinda looking forward to Project Cars. Shiny, shiny but no fun without physics. Too bad.
It is a real shame really, I was kinda looking forward to Project Cars. Shiny, shiny but no fun without physics. Too bad.
WhiteShadow
Yet pCARS is 4 years in.
http://www.virtualr.net/project-cars-new-amd-driver-coming-tomorrow
"AMD has announced to release a new version of their Catalyst graphics card driver that will address performance issues with Slightly Mad Studios’ Project CARS title."
I can see that you have logo to ISI under you name, this is no offense, just a question.
Do you think I can some day see this in ViritualIR.net : Nvidia has announced to release a new version of their GeForce card driver that will address performance issues with Image Space ’ rFactor2 title. ?
Noel Hibbard
I don't know, ask Nvidia not me. But what does this have to do with netcode/collision prediction?
Spinelli
Simulation theories make quite a bit of sense (that's not to say they're necessarily correct).
The general scientific acceptance of Planck Length and Planck Time actually lend themselves very well to simulation-universe theories.
If every single thing of every single thing was known and understood, and we had the most insanely powerful hardware/software, then why wouldn't we, ourselves, be able to program absolutely ever single thing that determines how every single thing works into that computer and watch another "universe" unfold? Or make our own super, super complex and deep laws and then program them into that computer and watch our own created universe at work?
I'm not saying I 100% believe it (I don't "believe" anything other than straight-up, 100% proof), but it can make a lot of sense when really looked into. Then again, so can many theories. It's so fascinating.
Anyways back to simracing
Last edited:
yusupov
arent u asking "if we were god, why wouldnt we be god'? i dont get it. anyway as you say...
Spinelli
It was a rhetorical question, but to answer your question, I didn't say "if we were god, why wouldn't we be god?", but rather, "if we were god, why wouldn't we be able to be god?" (to put it in the sort of terms you used)
The ISI programmers are basically the gods of how everything behaves/interacts/works etc. (physics) in rFactor world.
The developers (and to a certain extent , players) are the gods of how everything behaves/interacts/works etc. in the game The Sims
And so on and so on.
Think of that but a gazillion times more complex.
The ISI programmers are basically the gods of how everything behaves/interacts/works etc. (physics) in rFactor world.
The developers (and to a certain extent , players) are the gods of how everything behaves/interacts/works etc. in the game The Sims
And so on and so on.
Think of that but a gazillion times more complex.
Last edited:
WhiteShadow
I thought you are ISI dev, I looked closer that icon and you are not, sorry my mistake.
I have asked Nvidia, statement from Nvidia is that it is game issue and there is nothing they can do.
F2Chump
One thing to claim, quite another to prove....i wouldn't buy into all the quantum quackery that's out there as some of it relies on mathematical assumptions sans any means to empirically validate.
Minibull
It's not quantum "quackery", more just a matter of dealing with information on a stupidly intense level that is bloody near impossible to comprehend.
Sort of similar to those simulated reality ideas is the idea that we don't have free thought. Again, if you had a monumental computing power, and you simulated someones life down to the complete details of the world they live in, you would see the simulated person making the same decisions in life as the real one. From the basis of our genes, everything that happens to us is just a function of information processing by our brains.
To uh...bring that back to pCars...it would be simple processing for my simulated self.
If it goes on sale for under 30 bucks and gets some patches, I'll buy it XD
Spinelli
Nikola Tesla, that's all I'm going to say
P.S. It blows my mind, absolutely makes my head want to explode that after, what, 4 years? PCars doesn't even have proper multi-monitor support. I know that 99.9% of game's don't, but at the same time, 99.9% of sims do (Anything based on the RF1 engine [RF1, FT, SCE, ASR, etc.], RF2, IR, AC, LFS, possibly NKP [can't remember]). Therefore there may be something in the core game/graphics engine that makes this almost impossible, if not impossible, to program in. If that's the case, then SMS are seriously a bunch of tools.
I know that the pre-RF1 ISI engines aren't able to do proper multi-monitors either (etc. F102, F1CH99-02, etc.). Therefore the games based on pre-RF1 ISI engines aren't able to do it (R3E, R07/RI/GTRE, GTL, GTR 1/2). Does anyone know if the PC engine is originally based on the ISI engine (but massively edited from the very core like, for eg. R3E)? Even so, with the ability/rights/license to alter the core's engine, I don't understand why this couldn't have been programmed in, I mean, ISI were able to program it into the RF1 core in an RF1 update.
It just blows my mind that R3E and PC are still not capable of this in 2015 even if they are indeed based on pre-RF1 ISI engines (unlike Rieza, I believe Simbin, Blimey, Sector 3, SMS, had/have the rights to alter the core ISI engine itself).
P.S. It blows my mind, absolutely makes my head want to explode that after, what, 4 years? PCars doesn't even have proper multi-monitor support. I know that 99.9% of game's don't, but at the same time, 99.9% of sims do (Anything based on the RF1 engine [RF1, FT, SCE, ASR, etc.], RF2, IR, AC, LFS, possibly NKP [can't remember]). Therefore there may be something in the core game/graphics engine that makes this almost impossible, if not impossible, to program in. If that's the case, then SMS are seriously a bunch of tools.
I know that the pre-RF1 ISI engines aren't able to do proper multi-monitors either (etc. F102, F1CH99-02, etc.). Therefore the games based on pre-RF1 ISI engines aren't able to do it (R3E, R07/RI/GTRE, GTL, GTR 1/2). Does anyone know if the PC engine is originally based on the ISI engine (but massively edited from the very core like, for eg. R3E)? Even so, with the ability/rights/license to alter the core's engine, I don't understand why this couldn't have been programmed in, I mean, ISI were able to program it into the RF1 core in an RF1 update.
It just blows my mind that R3E and PC are still not capable of this in 2015 even if they are indeed based on pre-RF1 ISI engines (unlike Rieza, I believe Simbin, Blimey, Sector 3, SMS, had/have the rights to alter the core ISI engine itself).
Last edited:
WhiteShadow
Nikola Tesla, that's all I'm going to say
P.S. It blows my mind, absolutely makes my head want to explode that after, what, 4 years? PCars doesn't even have proper multi-monitor support. I know that 99.9% of game's don't, but at the same time, 99.9% of sims do (Anything based on the RF1 engine [RF1, FT, SCE, ASR, etc.], RF2, IR, AC, LFS, possibly NKP [can't remember]). Therefore there may be something in the core game/graphics engine that makes this almost impossible, if not impossible, to program in. If that's the case, then SMS are seriously a bunch of tools.
I know that the pre-RF1 ISI engines aren't able to do proper multi-monitors either (etc. F102, F1CH99-02, etc.). Therefore the games based on pre-RF1 ISI engines aren't able to do it (R3E, R07/RI/GTRE, GTL, GTR 1/2). Does anyone know if the PC engine is originally based on the ISI engine (but massively edited from the very core like, for eg. R3E)? Even so, with the ability/rights/license to alter the core's engine, I don't understand why this couldn't have been programmed in, I mean, ISI were able to program it into the RF1 core in an RF1 update.
It just blows my mind that R3E and PC are still not capable of this in 2015 even if they are indeed based on pre-RF1 ISI engines (unlike Rieza, I believe Simbin, Blimey, Sector 3, SMS, had/have the rights to alter the core ISI engine itself).
One and only game with Multiview UI as it supposed to be is iRacing.
Last edited:
Spinelli
U.I.?? What's your point?
Multiview still also works perfect in RF2, RF1, AC, NKP (I think), SCE, FT, ASR, LFS, etc.WhiteShadow
U.I.?? What's your point?
Multiview U I= Multiview User Interface.
I have ultra wide gaming monitors (6000x1080) and rFactor2 forces me to use Fov 17-19 to get my side monitors lined up, when I am forced to do this draw distance on the track is too short and feeling of the speed is too low. Bezel correction is also missing. When I am using windows option to this and use ctrl+f to look at my fps I can not see the numbers it is hidden behind the bezel.
You may say that this is only nonsense but it is not, if I take a screen shot everything looks fine but it is actually not how image looks in my monitors,scaling is wrong. New rFactor2 User Interface has option to fix this issue video res./widescreen width and it seems that ISI is aware of this problem but I don`t think this is the right solution, lowering widescreen width (resolution) gives you much worse picture quality.
AC multiview user interface is working fine but best in the business is iRacing. You find loads of options from iRacing multiview user interface, monitor width Including bezel (mm), Visible width excluding bezel (mm)etc.etc....
PS. Please guys don`t spam me about this, it is not relevant at all with comments like it is minimal % who has this problem, I like also to play best sim there is as it is meant to be played.
Last edited:
Spinelli
Sorry, I don't understand any of your problems. I have RF2, GSC, IR, and AC and multiview works spot-on in all of them
WhiteShadow
Sorry, I don't understand any of your problems. I have RF2, GSC, IR, and AC and multiview works spot-on in all of them
Sorry, I don`t understand you, if Multiview works for you it don`t mean that it may work to everybody else, if you don`t understand how windows bezel correction works with rFactor2 it is impossible to explain anything for you.
Please explain why we have this option, new rFactor2 User Interface > Options > video res. > widescreen width. Seems that ISI is aware of this problem with scaling, do you agree?
Last edited:
Golanv
What sorcery is this?
Lazza
Sorry, I don't understand any of your problems. I have RF2, GSC, IR, and AC and multiview works spot-on in all of them
Presumably WhiteShadow doesn't have his side screens facing him directly, which is required for rF2's multiview to look correct. Proper support (which has been mooted in the past by ISI, but we haven't got yet) would allow you to alter the angles it draws to suit your screen angles (and positions), rather than the other way round.
yusupov
this mayve just been me
or maybe some others think alike. if i had to compare it to another sim (racing game) rf2 is the one i think is the closest fit. what i find most interesting tho is the way grip is modeled, both have a lot of slip & alot of slack (pcars much moreso than rf2). both use "really complex" tire models that might end up giving 'synthetic'/'objective' results to how tires should behave as opposed to what simpler models might do, which (maybe) rely on intuition & feel. if anyone t hinks theres anything to that theory at all id be interested, bc idk the slightest about tire models or how the information is really obtained & processed, but my very basic understanding from niels H. video is that rf2 somehow determines tire characteristics by computer algorithm vs by hand, similar to what ive read about SETA (? or w/e its called).
in the end its all data & numbers that i dont understand so im not sure what the actual distinction is, i only know there is one bc the devs themselves say so, & what i take to be the 'synthetic' model has tires operating at suboptimal grip alot more often than the simpler models. unless iracing is as complex/similar in structure to sms/rf2 in which case, theory is shot dead already
WhiteShadow
Emery
In other words, rF2 uses an optimum monitor angle for multiview, but people (being people) want more variance, want the ability to select sub-optimal angles for their monitors. iRacing & AC support that.
For monitor bezel width, both AMD & nVidia provide you the opportunity to set that in the graphics driver. ISI chooses not to duplicate that functionality and iRacing & AC choose otherwise. People (still being people) prefer to not use the video driver (probably using a windowed mode?).
WhiteShadow
When I am using windows option = NVIDIA Control Panel > Spam displays with Surround > configure > Bezel Correction V1 V2 to this and use ctrl+f to look at my fps I can not see the numbers it is hidden behind the bezel, Mode: Fullscreen.
Last edited:
Golanv
this mayve just been me
if i had to compare it to another sim (racing game) rf2 is the one i think is the closest fit. what i find most interesting tho is the way grip is modeled, both have a lot of slip & alot of slack (pcars much moreso than rf2). both use "really complex" tire models that might end up giving 'synthetic'/'objective' results to how tires should behave as opposed to what simpler models might do, which (maybe) rely on intuition & feel. if anyone t hinks theres anything to that theory at all id be interested, bc idk the slightest about tire models or how the information is really obtained & processed, but my very basic understanding from niels H. video is that rf2 somehow determines tire characteristics by computer algorithm vs by hand, similar to what ive read about SETA (? or w/e its called).
in the end its all data & numbers that i dont understand so im not sure what the actual distinction is, i only know there is one bc the devs themselves say so, & what i take to be the 'synthetic' model has tires operating at suboptimal grip alot more often than the simpler models. unless iracing is as complex/similar in structure to sms/rf2 in which case, theory is shot dead already
Some recommended viewing
Spinelli
WhiteShadow, there is a bezel peek shortcut in the Nvidia surround settings, press it if you can't see something due to the bezel corrections.
Like emery said, multiview works perfect in RF2, RF1. It isn't as customizable from the game's POV, but the user can do that himself (adjust monitor angle, adjust FOV, adjust distance between eyes and monitors).
Furthermore, if you use a realistic in-game FOV, then I believe RF2 should work out to be 45 degrees for the outer monitors.
I've had 3 different triple screen setups (Samsung PX2370, ASUS VG248QE, BenQ XL2720T), two operating systems, many GPUs (AMD and Nvidia), three CPUs, 4 motherboards, and so on; multiview has always worked perfect for me so I highly doubt it's an issue of working with some systems but not with others. It's just down to user setup since it doesn't have as many customize-able options. And, yes, very small portions of the UI may get cut-off at times, but that's seriously nitpicking, even more-so considering the bezel-peek hotkey option which Nvidia offers (and I'm guessing AMD aswell).
Like emery said, multiview works perfect in RF2, RF1. It isn't as customizable from the game's POV, but the user can do that himself (adjust monitor angle, adjust FOV, adjust distance between eyes and monitors).
Furthermore, if you use a realistic in-game FOV, then I believe RF2 should work out to be 45 degrees for the outer monitors.
I've had 3 different triple screen setups (Samsung PX2370, ASUS VG248QE, BenQ XL2720T), two operating systems, many GPUs (AMD and Nvidia), three CPUs, 4 motherboards, and so on; multiview has always worked perfect for me so I highly doubt it's an issue of working with some systems but not with others. It's just down to user setup since it doesn't have as many customize-able options. And, yes, very small portions of the UI may get cut-off at times, but that's seriously nitpicking, even more-so considering the bezel-peek hotkey option which Nvidia offers (and I'm guessing AMD aswell).