Is it time to be honest and critical about ac?

Everything, pls get off your pCars sight of things! We want realism in simulations.

 

you want realism, then maybe drive real car then

I don't want ABSOLUTE realism, I want somethign that looks good, not overly done with cheap FX, but that looks good, I want PHOTO realism

 

Then you are, quite frankly, in the wrong forum!

 

because you say so ? what an ignorant oppinion

 

I liked your AC MODs, but hearing this lets me think twice...

 

what makes you think twice?

because you tell me to get out of here because I want games/sims to look good ? like photos?
yes, you are ignorant in your opinion, you want everything done in the way that works for you and you alone and that's definition of being selfish/ignorant

these effects can be turned off - most of them, if not all , so again, hard to see a harm in havign these supported in the engine, if the people who don't want these, or their GPU can't handle them, can simply turn them off

 

Cute!
And now back to topic, why do you invest time in modeling cars, do that physics thing, when you know it's not representative irl? We do SIMs out here!

 

That article nails it. All of those effects are pointless, and indeed.....unrealistic.

 

I never notice any of the effects while playing, I only notice them in replays and they make the replays look good.

 

yes it does, especially that last part - when it's done right (balance) it's perfectly fine and adds to experience
but you have to make sure you pick the right package for what you are trying to say, film grain won't make much sense in racing games, - while in Metro games it does make sense

so to sum up, these effects are NOT WRONG, it's the game designers that use them wrongly and often too much

but that doesn't mean that ANY of these has NO PLACE in AC and I stand behind that ! Motion blur being first of them, it only needs to be done right - match your FPS ( or at least get close)

 

sorry, I have read this 3 times and I don't understand what you are asking about

modeling cars + physics has nothing to do with effects , and effects doesn't change the model or physics

 

Reading a simple inquery 3times doesn't let you look better! You just stated you give a **** about realism as just its look good! Go to hell, sim racing wise!

 

patrik easily makes the list of this forums pickiest posters when it comes to car models resembling the real thing. i dont think you need to worry about his mods

ace, you are misunderstanding what he said -- tbh, im not even sure exactly what he meant, but you are placing intentions where there are none

edit -- jesus calm down man

 

I said I want it to look photo real , I didn't say I don't give a sh*t about realism, so don't put things into my mouth that I didn't say
motion blur doesn't make it unrealistic - when used right

if you can't deal with people having differnt oppinion to yours, then talking on public forum isn't for you. there will ALWAYS be people with different oppinion than yours

 

Oh yeah,ruddering back! You did make that statements @Patrik Marek, no taking back!

 

My feel on motion blur is, I'd rather spend the GPU power on higher framerates - running at 120Hz unblurred will let your visual system do 'natural' blurring of objects that are moving past you, heck you could probably see the difference between 120 and 240Hz in a racing game cause so much of it is smooth panned scenery.

Thing about a cinematic experience is, you don't have to react split second to it like you do to a game... probably better off leaving out features that make the game harder to play.

 

at 120 fps, the blurring amount should be minimal anyhow, so yep for those framerates it certainly doesn't make sense

but that's quite what I'm trying to say, the problem is that motion blur might not be matching the fps, I'm not entirely sure how it works in games - becasue games to run fast need to take compromises, but in movies.

so basically, when your playback is as 24fps you see a lot of motionblur, whereas if your shot if 60 fps there isn't much of a blur, yet when you play it back at their respective FPS, they both look fine
if you haven't used motion blur at all, it will look bit strobey/CG

now in games, I have to say that I don't know exactly how the blur works. it's post process, so I assume you are getting motion vectors for your pixels and based on their speed you are applying some blur to them, but I don't know if by how its done you always get correct blur, or if they are blurred by certain value

because in theory, if your FPS is higher, you should see less motion blur, and I doubt that it does take the FPS into considerations. I think it's a preset value of how much blur it should be doing, and perhaps this value is set too high in some games

 

LOL
a WMD talking about graphic bugs in AC...
@Patrik Marek : you are priceless

 

you want realism, then maybe drive real car then

I don't want realism, I want somethign that looks good, not overly done with cheap FX, but that looks good
@Patrik Marek how do you justify this pile of crap on a sim racing forum?

 

Well it's down to the game implementing it correctly or not, and then there's accumulative blur (need for speed use this heavily in some games - new frames don't replace the old one, it just averages them together, gives you streaks behind lights and stuff - this one's more frame rate dependent). As post-processing, it should use the frame time & the velocity of the object to decide how much to blur, of course there are edge cases but for general scenery it works ok.