Still Looks Fake (Not a Rant/ Bash on AC)

So last night before I went to bed I tried out AC again for the first time in a few weeks with the BMW z4 gt3 with hard tires and full fuel and I have to say the NTM is amazing, but that's not my point for the thread.
AC, as well as every other newer modern racing game, still looks fake to me. Looking at screen shots, driving in game, etc. never match up to what my view is on life outside or inside a car. What is puzzling to me is that I can't even tell what makes things look false to me, I just can tell the game looks like a game and not real life. Does anyone have these same problems? Do you think there is a physiological problem that I sub-consciously know its fake or is there something else? Maybe when it comes to driving in AC, and other sims I already know what it is like to drive at speeds on a track irl compared to in a sim?
The reason I bring this up is because AC seems to be the closest to photo-realism, but at the same time so far away.

 

The answer is simple. Which game/sim do you consider near real life? Because every sim, is a SIMULATOR, not real life. About driving, for me, this is the most complete i ever tried, full of infos about car, handling, etc.. graphics is under development, but really good for a "videogame". Photo realism is just utopia with actual technology.
About performance comparison on real track you can find useful example here in the forum, because some people have shown that AC is really close to real car perfomance and timing. Under development yet, but the best out there at the moment (forget about competitivity, like iR).

 

I have stated that before about performance, I know that it will always be a "sim" in terms of driving feel. That is the definition of the simulation anyways, to attempt to represent a real life situation through imitation. I'm only talking about graphically, and how even though I do not notice what is "wrong" graphically, I still can tell it is a simulation of visuals, and I don't know why I can tell. The wonders of the human mind...

 

try saturating it in game, i think mine is 80%.

my issue has always been the vibrancy in colours.

 

For more real feeling you will need an upgrade. TrackIR is not so expensive x check this vid from Toykilla!

 

For me its the sense that I'm actually in the scene driving the car. Whatever it is that creates that makes it real for me. I think we'll always be able to tell visually its a simulation. Having said that, AC looks so much more realistic that say, rfactor 2, which also has good physics and is fun to drive. Yet next to AC, to me it looks like a cartoon.

 

Put contrast and sharpness really high lol. just drive I know what you mean. it's probably one of if not best though on pc graphically.

 

To me AC can look very realistic at times and less realistic other times. Just tested the "about to rain" cfg mod and looking at replays etc it looks amazingly real. With the DX11 engine i think Kunos and community will be able to make it look really good in the end.

Also its about driving for me and this sim just feels so damn good so i dont really care. Would be nice with small extra effects (that dont really matter as such) like grass flying around when leavaing the track and maybe some rubber parts on the track the more you drive. Small things that can make it look more "alive" and real. But i think it looks great already as it is. Games usually go for full color bonanza and killer bloom etc, Kunos havent with AC and it looks more real than many other titles - to me at least.

 

Must be from iRacing. That has the best photo-realism experience to date.
Their newer tracks look super sharp and clear (no jaggies). Yet you can get amazing FPS.
Guess its finding the right balance of eye candy. PCARS screenshots look the best but doesn't translate it into the actual driving.

 

i don't think any game looks real atm, the key is lighting and how materials reflect off it, also shadows. The hardware isnt good enough...in 20 years possibly.

 

This.

 

No matter how many polygons they use to model the cars, or how accurate the laser-scanned tracks are, the game will never look real without realistic lighting. That's where most PC sims fail.

 

So what is bad about the lighting? or just everything is wrong?

 

I know that when modders get their hands on to the HDR profile, things start to happen.
Give it time, and while waiting for that, play with the saturation and the colours, FOV and seat position, TrackIR, Triple Screen etc...

 

im no graphics expert, i think the way how light is reflected/absorbed by different materials is not simulated? GT5's lighting looks the best i feel, if you took AC's models and textures and gave gt5's lighting it'll look very good. I remember when daytona and sega rally came out I thought they looked 'real', what a difference 20 years have made.

 

Graphics look great to me, I wish there was more detail in the trees, but the road, lighting, and colors look great.

 

I actually think trees and grass in AC looks amazing! Will be good if the trees swayed a bit..

 

The lightning is the most important thing for graphics. It can even make a game like CS1.6 look pretty damn good. And atm the lightning in AC isn't that sort of eyecandy. It's good, but nothing special or even outstanding.
I tried to edit the hdr.ini and got a pretty good result. At least for me it's pretty good. Does anyone know, if we can make separate hdr.ini-files for each track?
I will share the ini-file, when I'm at home.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 5 mit Tapatalk

 

Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

 

Not sure if trolling?!
Never played iRacing but watched several 1080p videos of it and can safely say it might have better lighting but models (instrument panels) and textures (tracks, ambience) seem archaic at best.