Isi released not licence content, why kunos cant?

I would take some generic stock car any time. In iRacing those oval stock cars are good fun around road courses. (actually in that game they are better than most proper race cars)

 

so you wanted to say, having laserscanned tracks or licenced content doesn`t give you more realistic physics ... yep that`s true

 

Yes. As the original comment was towards rF2 and physics realism is its selling point, I assumed we were talking about that kind of realism.

 

I'd rather drive a Ferrari 458 at Brands Hatch than a Punani 459 at Hands Bratch.

Licencing is important when you want to simulate something properly.


Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

Because they call it real road, i think. and i seroiusly had never such a time gap of about 10 seconds just because of the track evolution. maybe about 2-3 seconds and thats about it. and it is much more a simulating thing in my opinion when a track evolves at that certain parts where you are racing on. this gives me a lot more immersion and tactical feeling than a scripted thing on a laserscanned track. and even if a track is laserscanned the surface has to be designed and programmed by a programmer. and if he does crap you can even "ice skating" on a laserscanned track.

really, what has a name of a car to do with the accuracy of simulation? if i want a real name i do my own paintjob and edit the name of the cars. i guess the definition of simualtion spreads horribly wide in here.

 

Sorry, i got my wires crossed. ISI don't have a NASCAR license. Wasn't thinking straight. That's what i get for posting messages before i've woken up lol

The series is called SCRS. it's based on a Gen 6 car and they use the following pseudonyms for the cars:

Evo: Ford Fusion
Titan: Toyota Camry
Centennial: Chevrolet SS

Sorry for the duff info. You would think i'd remember seeing we've interviewed them about this very subject on a couple of occasions.

http://simhqmotorsports.com/rfactor-2-stock-cars/
http://simhqmotorsports.com/rf2-stock-car-racing/

I'm off back to bed.

 

A license does not automatically mean more realism. It can mean that realism only if said license comes with access to exclusive data that else would be unavailable, but is essential for the simulation, and that indeed gets then competently used by the license-taker (some just are after the right to use the brand name and emblem). But just brand names and emblems alone mean nothing. Or would anyone argue that the Porsches by Electronic Arts all are the last word in simulation realism?

Lasertracks interact with the physics engine. Without a proper physics engine capable of making something additionally good of the additonal data detail, the laserscan of the track itself is pointless. At best you get better precision for placing objects. I have come to learn that laserscanned tracks are a bonus that is nice to have, but should not be overestimated. Other factors are important as well in forming the final quality of a track. Would anyone be happy to drive a laserscanned track that is just a lightgrey strip, correct in its layout and proportion, before a light green background, like it was in the days of untextured polygon-graphics 25 years ago? Would anyone seriously argue that Lucca Ring is not a most superb track even though it is not laserscanned?

Does realism of a simulation get increased by cosmetic gimmicks only? Was IL2 sold in Germany - and thus due to German laws with a ban of Swastikas on German planes - less realistic than a copy sold - with active Swastikas - in the US or England? Does the right emblem on a car matter if car behavior nevertheless catches the essentials of that car's characterisics?

No.

But it adds to immersion.

Realism counts. Immersions counts, too - for some people more, for other people less. Its called taste.

 

I did Real Road testing some time ago.
Sebring 12h course 10 AI C6r cars each running 5 laps, best times were:
Green track (set to static so it stays green) - 2.05.152
Highly rubbered track custom preset (preset of simulated 3000 laps (20AI x 10laps x 15real road scale)) - 2.03.254

AI cars were ~2 seconds slower on green vs rubbered track. Ice or 10secs? Not even close. Even if 10sec difference happened in some cases that's not intentional functionality.

 

Let's settle this dispute with Purrari

 

Just tried the stock cars and all I can say is 'thank goodness that iracing doesn't suck after their latest build'.......maybe there are ini files that I need to tweak for my DFGT, or an in-game setting that I am missing because they felt like junk.
I will admit though that even if it felt great it would be hard to get past the ancient looking, absolutely garbage graphics. I have everything completely maxed out, am getting somewhere around 80+fps, yet my screen is a microstuttery mess of pure ugly.
We must all truly feel and see things completely differently because right now there is absolutely no redeeming qualities to be found in rf2 for me, yet others claim that it is the only realistic simulator available and that they feel the graphics are perfectly fine.

If anybody has DFGT settings they want to share I will give them a try for sure, but in all likelihood I will be deleting the entire mess from my hard drive soon.

 

EA stopped paying for licenses for the guns they use in the battlefield series and still call them by their name, anyone knows how they are able to do it?

Edit: http://www.pcgamer.com/ea-ditches-g...s-year-but-will-continue-to-use-branded-guns/

http://bf4central.com/2013/05/battlefield-4-gun-names/

 

I gave rF2 my fourth try with their actual demo yesterday. With AC car and Formula Ferrari - I hated it. I hated the steering, the FFB, the looks, the dust of time raining down my screen.

But the AI did well. Very. Better than in R3E, I'd say.

Still, deinstalled after less than 60 minutes after installation.

Their setup interface for the wheel is now better accessible, however, than during my last try. Trying this demo got me ready faster than the first three times. But the result from testdriving still was disillusionizing from first seconds on.

This fourth will have been my last try with rF2. I see no point in planning to ever try it again in the future. The score is 0:4, no questions remain.

 

Last time I tried Rf2 I had a couple of laps with the Skippy and the physics was truly awesome.. but that's a car that is "made for the feelz"

 

@Skybird
Which Formula Ferrari does their demo have now? BTW I don't like rF2 AC at all,ffb is weak but jumpy, car understeers as hell, thought with competition tires it becomes a bit more interesting, but still mediocre compared to cars that I like in rF2.
As I remember they have karts in demo, they are great fun.

 

for my DFGT ..
in profiler just standard: 106, 0,0,0, 900 ..
ingame: car specific: 1.0, smoothing: 8, rotation deg: auto, min.torque: 0% ... i think it is default settings
and it is pretty much best FFB I`ve ever experienced .. natural, progressive, conected, I could almost swear I feel tyre flexing
I haven`t play that much eventhough I consider physics and FFB best .. not a big fan .. even asked for refund but somehow it didn`t come through so my account is still active and Im waiting ...

 

Same here, even if I drive alone at 180fps it feels nothing like that, there is a constant microstuttering that is very annoying. And indeed the graphics are ugly, the color palette is terrible imo, the sky is almost white, etc... and the cars are also quite bad, those Nascars are nothing especial visually despite being their last piece of content. On the physics side it's a piece of art imo, not perfect but really amazing, but I just can't ignore the performance/visual stuff.

 

They use little modified models and they can use names as in movies or similar...

 

Do you get smooth graphics in others games running at 180fps? Personally I run both rF2 and AC with FPS limit otherwise both are microstuttering, however I noticed that rF2 gives me lower input lag (after switching to AC I immediately notice a bit slower virtual wheel even thought both runs with 1 prerendered frame). Graphics itself isn't that ugly, some cars actually have good 3d models, however as you say the color pallete/lightning makes it look terrible. There seems to be overall grey filter applied to everything that makes it look like "apocalypse" game with pale colors, the the sky is overexposed even when you set evening time.

 

I have no problems in any other game (obviously it's not as smooth as with v-sync, but they all run fine) however with rF2 it is different. It's been the same since ever, tried many things, including fps limiters, but at the end nothing improved.

I agree with the "grey filter", it really looks like there is something like that. I forgot to add also that the realroad, as cool as it is as a feature, visually it's really badly implemented, take those Nascars to any oval and you see the same skidmarks texture repeated again and again. iRacing's implementation seems way better in that aspect.

 

I can agree that having a license to use real names won't improve physics, but it does add realism to the game, that's an argument that holds water.
But i guess most of us are not interested in a Porsche with a Nissan badge and drives like a 89 Corolla, but each to their own.

This topic can be discussed for hours, and we would still have our own opinion.
But i do think it's an interesting topic and see what other people actually thinks about AC.