Discuss rFactor2

The iRacing version is a few years old by now, the rF2 version scan is from March 2018 IIRC. May have something to do with technology, or even coding in different game engines, but I think the track simply progressed since the iRacing team scanned it.

 

I thought it wasn't needed to start every sentence with "IMO ....". Common sense should tell you that every post is just the opinion of whoever that writes it.

 

i love the way rf2 drives, but it runs like total crap, especially in vr

 

In that case I repeat my question to you that you still haven't answered: What is objective criteria to claim that one track is better than other?

 

VR-performance has improved recently in rF2 although, for those using the Rift, the conversion for Open-VR does seem to impact performance. So a system that is on the fringe in terms of specs, is probably going to struggle.

Sebring does seem to be more demanding so even my system has some noticeable drops in VR-performance with reduced graphics settings.

 

More cloud points means better track? Only that?

 

Having now read many of the comments on Sebring and other S397 release pricing to date, I come away with this...
I think a lot of people feel a bit 'miffed' by what they view as incomplete and in some cases, dishonest marketing of RF2.
It unfortunately, has put S397 in a bit of a 'pickle' regarding price of content.
The view of somebody purchasing RF2 today versus someone who purchased it at release, will always be different.
New buyers did not wait around being kept in the dark on progress that came at a snail's pace and in some cases...not at all.
I purchased the early release...then went on to renew twice, before being asked to subscribe to 'lifetime'.
Shortly thereafter, the official servers 'disappeared' and the game was handed off.
At the height of it, I still couldn't join servers because of a 'fractured' multi-player system which seemed to support mostly league racers.
I was essentially, supporting the project while occasionally taking it out for a few hot-laps every few months...hoping the improvements would come in the future.
Enter S397...and I have to admit, they've done a good job in moving the platform forward in their short time with it.
I think most of the problem for them stems from the fact that people view Rfactor2 in their hands, as just a continuation of what they should have had to date from the project.
Had the name of the project been changed to something else, the negative view in pricing would have still been there to some extent, but not as bad.

 

The track is great but i just can't get into the ffb, some cars are ok some not, reminds me of pcars2.

 

Hmm, I wish PC2 FFB was that good. Getting the FFB good in rF2 is a challenge though, I really think the key is finding the right preset - no matter what wheel is used. There are some pretty obscure parameters within the json files that are not easy to understand for most of us.

 

Feels really similar to me, lots of road detail but little in term of grip felt in corners. I find it hard to tell what the car is doing. Where/what are these presets?

 

For what i've seen, in general iracing's tracks are some steps over all the other.

Track details, palette colors, and textures are masterpieces.

 

Physics is continuous, not discrete. Simulation only samples the physical state of some system at discrete intervals, i.e. ticks, but in reality the physical system is changing continuously. At any moment, the physical state of a system depends on the state it was in before. In a simulation, where you are only doing each calculation on a tick, you miss out (or have to approximate), what is happening between ticks. The more frequently a simulation calculates the physical state, i.e. the higher the tick rate, the more accurate the simulation will be.

A developer might decide that simulation of the tyre state might be more important, and so needs to be calculated 2400 times a second for greater accuracy, whereas other parts of the system are less important and don't need to be simulated as accurately, and can be calculated at a lower tick rate. The result of the tyre simulation, made more accurate by being calculated 2400 times a second, can then be fed into the rest of the physics engine 400 times a second.

 

Scanned versions of notoriously bumpy tracks will always impress imo.

Even Pcars2 Long Beach makes a huge first impression.

 

Thanks Lord Kunos for being present at the user forum and giving us insights about AC and ACC physics. It's interesting to read that Kunos changed or optimized AC code for ACC to operate at 111Hz for collisions,AI and input/output (which I assume is steering wheel input and FFB output too) while physics remain at 333 Hz. As you mentioned the reason for this was to support many AI cars (and I assume to work on the less powerful consoles too).

rFactor2 to my knowledge uses a different approach using highest quality tire, physics and FFB simulation with high refresh rates and still being able to race against many AI: Only the drivers car is simulated by that high quality tire, physics and FFB rfactor2 simulation - this simulation model really needs a lot of CPU power even for one car to compute at these high frequencies. For the other AI cars the lot more simple rfactor1 simulation model is used. (you get the simplified rfactor1 simulation data from the test results of rfactor2 simulation when compiling). IMO that was a very smart move by ISI, getting the highest quality simulation model for the drivers car but still being able to race against many AIs without needing a military supercomputer.

 

[QUOTE="WallyM, post: 981325, member:
Physics is continuous, not discrete. Simulation only samples the physical state of some system at discrete intervals
[/QUOTE]

Planck proposed everything in ‘reality’ is quantized, and so far he’s not been proven wrong. In fact it’s quite the opposite

 

Exactly:
Planck time (lowest time interval in our universe) is ~5.4 x 10^⁻44 sec.
rFactor2 tire simulation time interval: 4.1 x 10^-4 sec.

LOL, there is still some room

 

Thanks, I’m lazy... I know.
Your answer is that good, I use it next time on any rF2 loyalist.

Edit:

 

Yet a 2.8GHz Dual Core is all that is needed to run it.....hmmmmm

 

Rf2 is really easy on the cpu.
My 4460 which is a really mediocre cpu, runs races with 40+ AI cars and stay below 60%.
The limited factor ( lol) is the gpu , where my 480 goes at 99% at 1440p , when we have clouds and rain. In sunny conditions , no problem.
Cpu though? Really easy.

Στάλθηκε από το m2 note μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk