|
|
Post by jimna1 on Sept 18, 2016 21:25:20 GMT 10
Hi all,
Thought I'd share this if you havn't seen it.
This relates to the announcement of DX11 and VR support for RFactor.
This sim deserves more love. The best physics in any sim!
|
|
|
|
Post by playlife on Sept 30, 2016 10:50:12 GMT 10
This is a similar topic to the one Chris started. However my post directly answers this topic better.
The way I see rF2 was that ISI developed the core engine and not a whole complete game title. There are too many open ends, lack of development etc. for it to be considered a complete game title. What Reiza has done with rF1 is amazing - they took the core engine and components, understood it all, 'tweaked it' and created a polished product. And by tweaking I don't mean changing one or two numbers, they completely rehashed the physics to make it feel more real than any other mod out there by a mile in my opinion.
Take a look at the FREE game they released called Marcas (available on Steam as well). This is what can be achieved with rF1, of which Game Stockcar and Automobilista and full game title versions of. Still for me by far and away the best feeling sim out there, even better than rF2. I found myself playing it the other night for hours!
Now I hope that the new partnership with Studio 397 can bring rF2 to the levels that Reiza was able to achieve with rF1. This is what rF2 needs to ensure the core components of the gmotor engine can get the best treatment to really promote the technology within it. And it needs to be a fully polished product like GSCE. I don't care for a 200+ different cars and 500+ tracks. I'd be more than happy with a limited number of cars and tracks but done to an extremely high level.
|
|
|
|
Post by bwana on Sept 30, 2016 12:21:47 GMT 10
Interesting you opinion on AM physics compared to rf2. There is certainly difference's between various cars in rf2 (ISI)with some needing a lot of work ie chassis flex cpm etc steering rack etc. Given that comparing ISI unfinished historics to those in AM is where the much more complex and frankly accurate physics of rf2 plus isi's tire and track surface shine well above AM. What we do have is an smorgasbord of good and evolving sim options... AM 2017 will certainly be one to get . Bring on the next few years of simracing..
|
|
|
|
Post by playlife on Sept 30, 2016 14:49:53 GMT 10
Interesting you opinion on AM physics compared to rf2. There is certainly difference's between various cars in rf2 (ISI)with some needing a lot of work ie chassis flex cpm etc steering rack etc. Given that comparing ISI unfinished historics to those in AM is where the much more complex and frankly accurate physics of rf2 plus isi's tire and track surface shine well above AM. What we do have is an smorgasbord of good and evolving sim options... AM 2017 will certainly be one to get . Bring on the next few years of simracing.. I think fundamentally rF2 is equipped to be far better than Game Stockcar - but I don't think the implementation of the former is in the same league. My biggest issue with rF1 and rF2 is the mass and intertia of the car. This is really highlighted when the car is dynamically unstable and at its extreme when it is hitting walls or getting air. From what I'm told it is a significantly flaw in the some of the physics model aspects when the car no longer is in the stable 1.0g condition. I can't vouch for that or explain further but that is the feeling I independently get. I do feel the tyre contact in rF2 does feel better than GSC but I guess due to the various other bugs in it seems to overshadow the better things for me. Given GSC is using the rF1 engine, it's a bit embarrassing that it looks like a more polished product given it's core is 11 years old... |
|
|
|
Post by bwana on Sept 30, 2016 16:19:43 GMT 10
Its the aviation industry in you ,w else could notice that airborne feeling through ffb. 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by FatCity on Sept 30, 2016 20:08:47 GMT 10
Interesting you opinion on AM physics compared to rf2. There is certainly difference's between various cars in rf2 (ISI)with some needing a lot of work ie chassis flex cpm etc steering rack etc. Given that comparing ISI unfinished historics to those in AM is where the much more complex and frankly accurate physics of rf2 plus isi's tire and track surface shine well above AM. What we do have is an smorgasbord of good and evolving sim options... AM 2017 will certainly be one to get . Bring on the next few years of simracing.. I think fundamentally rF2 is equipped to be far better than Game Stockcar - but I don't think the implementation of the former is in the same league. My biggest issue with rF1 and rF2 is the mass and intertia of the car. This is really highlighted when the car is dynamically unstable and at its extreme when it is hitting walls or getting air. From what I'm told it is a significantly flaw in the some of the physics model aspects when the car no longer is in the stable 1.0g condition. I can't vouch for that or explain further but that is the feeling I independently get. I do feel the tyre contact in rF2 does feel better than GSC but I guess due to the various other bugs in it seems to overshadow the better things for me. Given GSC is using the rF1 engine, it's a bit embarrassing that it looks like a more polished product given it's core is 11 years old... So I guess what you're saying is that RF2 is by far the best, if you don't hit walls or get air...............hmmm yep, that should do it lol. |
|
|
|
Post by playlife on Sept 30, 2016 21:53:08 GMT 10
lol@ both of you
And yes, you're both probably spot on!
|
|
