ACC GFX discussion

Yes.
I can feel everything, though it is not as pronounced as in the previous game.

 

I don't know about you guys but this is the minimum graphics I expect from a game in 2019:

Too bad the only thing that is good in this game are the graphics.

Some folks here get angry at the ones that requires graphics. But if their tire is 1 degree colder than normal, they will create a complaining thread. How can you guys not care about graphics and be playing a simulator where the main objective is basically immersion? This doesn't make sense for me. If you are happy with "OK" graphics, thinks we're exaggerating and details don't matter to you, ok, you are a simple man and i respect this. But why be against someone that wants excellent graphics? I just want to remember that you guys paid for your ACC copy, if you don't want to demand some work from Kunos related to graphics at least don't get in our way or say that we are exaggerating because this is really important to us.

The models and textures of the game seems on point to me with the exception of the lack of some models like branches, leaves and dirt textures. The real problem is lighting, camera settings and a lot of post-processing. They need to fix glare, depth of field, motion blur, AA, and use and configure ACES Filmic Tonemapper to achieve that insane dynamic range and photorealism.

 

Can you describe how it feels please?

I'm trying to understand how the DD-wheels I've used don't produce such effects when in essence, its what they normally excel at. Perhaps there is some frequency-related signal getting filtered out (?) It's very strange.

 

Anyone have an idea what card you need minimum so it looks somewhat decent (full ai grid, medium settings, 1080p, not too blurry or heavy alaising)?

 

Generally, in Simulation terms, it's largely understood that there are resource limitations that have to be accounted for. As you pointed out yourself, games such as GTA / Forza may have amazing graphics but, lack in other areas. It's not simply a matter of developers wanting to achieve epic levels of greatness in all areas but rather, limitations in resources (be it time and money for development or average user hardware specs, etc.). Tradeoffs have to be made in order to produce an outcome that is balanced to appeal to the intended audience; Simulations tend to be more Physics-focused than graphics-focused out of necessity but, it goes far beyond that when we look at all the various areas that require significant resources.

For one example: Take a look at "BeamNG"; it can do some truly amazing things with car-crash / damage physics but, if developers tried to implement such advanced crash-physics in a racing-sim, the real crash would be the title's survival because the PC-hardware required to run it would be so massive. Advanced Tire-physics calculations alone, can bring a high-end PC to it's knees; processing Advanced AI calculations can also do so. Oh, now you want it all to run butter smooth in VR too(?) How can we expect to have so many "advanced features" in one title and still make it affordable and accessible for a given market (?)

Combining all of these things in one fine-running package is simply not technically possible (or feasible) at this time. Fortunately, we can alter our perspective and see that what we actually do have access to right now is quite amazing. But, our dreams should always surpass our reach by some measure.

 

Wait after version 1.0 is released if you're looking to upgrade your hardware. A GPU that now is underpowered might be fine once the game receives a few passes of optimization.
(As a side note, to achieve good performance with a full AI grid, the CPU is very important. So even if you have a 2080ti but a 10 years old CPU, you won't get the results you want)

 

You are 100% right here.
ALL simulation software suffers some type of compromise.
I don't know why it is so hard for guys to understand that fact.
The Forzas and GTAs of the world have great graphics, but not a whole lot deeper development surrounding the core features.
Those titles have great graphics and a 'driveable' model.
They do not have to cope with the wealth of suspension adjustments, enhanced pit-stops, enhanced tire physics for wet/dry, etc...
They don't need competitive AI development.
They don't need engine parameter simulation development.
I work in simulation.
I maintain a $10m flight simulator.
It uses nine server for motion, IO, stc... plus an additional four servers just for visuals.
It is a great tool for teaching pilots but it too...despite is absolute computing power, has to compromise on some things.
Folks need to understand that their $2K-3K computer can't do all that they want it to do.
They also need to learn the benefit of patience.
It is called early development for a reason.

 

APC900 has really made an effort to explain why you probably won't see KartKraft/FH4 like graphics in ACC... So I'd be keen to hear your response to his post.

I'll admit, that I don't play the normal AAA titles, so my perspective is based on flight Sims and sim racers... And in this context, ACC graphics is on par if not better with some of the best sim titles ( barring obvious kinks still being ironed out of course)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

Sorry to ask, but have you guys ever used UE4? You guys seem to have no idea what you guys are talking about. What is widely understood is wrong. Good graphics don't mean poor performance or a lot of time wasted. We are not in the 90's , technology works for us now. Thanks to technology it is possible to get photorealistic graphics in an hour at 1440p60 on a medium hardware. With the addition of the simulation this will result in a not so good performance, obvious. Kunos just need to balance the graphics with the simulation, what they could do within the same hour. The only limitation of Kunos is AA, and yet they have methods to circumvent this limitation. What worries me is that we are halfway through EA and they haven't even changed this blur problem.

Remember that I am on the same side as you. I just want a better ACC.

 

More natural is that will come near v1.0. To must work on other areas just now.

 

In a sim title, no. Can you perhaps point me to a sim title you are using for comparison ? (KartKraft is not considered a sim title at this point in time)

Ditto.

In a pure simulation title, there is a tradeoff as APC900 tried to explain.

Agreed, have a look at my Avatar for graphics with a 90's flavor

OK good, we're on the same page.

And I lost you again. Balance is exactly what Kuno's is busy working on.

They're working against a project plan - we have no idea how their work has been prioritized. Yet I dont get why it worries you - their work is not done.

Good to hear. Now try to put yourself in the devs' shoes, who are working feverishly on this, but at the same time have to deal with the mounds of negativity and uninformed presumptions on something that is clearly a work in progress. Is this really helping ?

 

It is official, and I can confirm, the more you play it the more your gfx problems go way.

 

Hm, if you say so.

 

Not that bad for a 10 years old graphics engine

 

Oh dear...a lot of people are complaining way too much. I see them judge the project by selected aspects they care about the most and fail to see the good stuff around them.

How about the good menu implementation? Except for a few items, everything can be operated from the wheel. The menus look nice, the setup screen is beautiful. And the most important thing: physics are very, very good.

All in all, I see a very good EA launch here. A lot of feedback is unfair IMO.

 

@LeDude83 - perfect written. 100% d'accord. your posting has to pop up everytime if you want to post something 'bout the acc early access

 

I dont think ACC looks bad at all. I run it on 1440p on high refresh rate monitor with i7 8700k and 2080 Ti, everything maxed out (no mirrors though) temporal AA, hood view and 100% sharpen. The games does not flicker one bit and is sharp enough for me and runs at around 120-140 fps, full car field, with low sun (so meaning long shadows) and dry conditions. I think it looks beautiful texture wise, geometry etc. Only thing i am a bit annoyed by is the fact that the game looks color wise a bit blown out, but i am sure that's not a real biggie. Maybe just need a bit more atmospheric effects here and there to make the environment look more alive, but other than that i am actually fine with how it looks. Definitely better than AC (fired this up yesterday), though less polished. Never underestimate how much the polishing touches can change a game optically. Also remember how AC looked when it went into early access, it was really underwhelming. And now it looks ace although 4-5 years old.

 

The alaising and bluriness is definitly Not Great by todays Standards.
Otherwise it Looks Fine, but not amazing (the trailers do actually), while smaller studios usually struggle to reach AA(A) studio territory - but still ac typical lifeless, which I find more critical, in 2018 a race, especially if its based on a real one, should like one..
Anyway, the Main concern of Most is probably the Performance on midrange Hardware combined with the aa and sharpness. Minimal alaising and a decently crispsness are basics. The use of supersampling can't be the only solution imo.

Anyway waiting for 1.0 or maybe a few patches could be a solution, IF things got sorted out, whats not always the case.

Yeah. It reminds of the PCars thread. Oh...

 

Well your hardware is the most expensive and fastest to buy for now^^
Not wondering though.
Most guys including myself have more like a midclass PC or higher end laptop with GTX1070.

I dont think ACC looks bad, but performancewise it is heavy.
Anyway i wont cry in a EA phase

 

It is not only ugly, but is very demanding for both CPU and GPU.

In my case it is huge problem. I use a Asus 1440p 144 hz monitor, so, to put the resolution native, that is the only resolution the image is good, I have to put various settings on low to run the game with more than 100 fps. With so many cars on the track, strugle to keep more than 80 fps. My i7 4790k and my GTX 1080 both are burning to run the game and the graphics are simple crap, not good enough.

On original AC is other thing. I can put 15 AI cars, run 2560x1440 resolution with stable 144 fps and the game is beautiful.

A engine is not good if we need multi GPU, a very good CPU and for a racing simulation run at only 60 fps on single races.

It was the worst decision they made and ruins everything else. I wish they return to a good engine in the next Assetto Corsa.