or maybe better?
Having gone from GPL to rF and not really tried other sims along the way I didn't realise how much graphics quality made a difference to a sim (or at least I'd forgotten since I made the change from GP to GP2!). I still say the other qualities (physics, net code and such) are more important but it feels really nice to sit in the 68 Lotus and drive it around (though I could do without the setting sun thing - yes it's realistic but only if the race is late in the evening).
Last edited by Seven Smiles; 11-07-11 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Corrected the title
I'm not Tim but i can say to you that rF2 won't be supporting directX11 and Project CARS does.
You will have to be happy about the fact while looking less detailed as CARS (i talk poly count and textures sizes) rFactor 2 will offer different kind of density in terms of graphics meaning animated marshalls & pitcrews, rain, dynamic track rubbering and the 24 hours cycle mixed into that.
Plus HDR, Bloom, Sun Glare, Heat haze etc...
PS : I found weird that the grass look the same in Battlefield 3 and CARS, like it's coming from a dx 11 library and i'm really not a fan of this dx11 aspect of the rendering.
I think it's really unlikely that rFactor 2 will look as good as Project CARS (its new name, by the way).
ISI only has about 10 employees, whereas SMS has 51 the last time I counted. Based purely on manpower, I think Project CARS will always be the better looking game, though I think rFactor 2 will probably have better physics and features. Plus, rFactor 2 will have the support of the modding community so it will stay fresher longer, with some high quality mods possibly equaling the graphical fidelity of Project CARS in the future.
Both Project CARS and BF3 use deferred rendering and it causes weird issues with alpha transparencies on assets like grass. The SMS engineering team is looking into solutions (possibly modifying the forward renderer) so by launch next November I'm sure it'll look much better than it does right now.Originally Posted by shum94
Long story short: it has nothing to do with DX9 vs DX11.
#5
You're asking for an opinion? Make your own opinions.
I cant really tell much of a difference between DX9 and DX11 in CARS. What i can tell, is that so far its pretty much an arcade game. I dont think RF2 will be under much of a threat quite yet, based on the assumption RF2 will be better than RF1
e: Tim, a shark ate the fish in your avatar
dx9vsdx11.......blablabla. Dx versions has a very, very little visual efect in today games. What really makes a visual differences, is how good is developer in what his doing. Thats the whole story. Dx 11 is there just to make some things easier to developer. Next video show how can just a little tweaks make a game visually a lot better than original. Not that is original bad, is obviously not if we can get this level of detail out of it. Just a different approach on tweaks and we get this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIXag...eature=related
Not quite true. Yes, DX11 is supposedly easier to develop for but there are some fairly fundamental changes in how it processes data, not to mention it introduces new capabilities that would be somewhere between impossible and extremely difficulty to implement in previous versions. Everyone who's been PC gaming for a while remembers the difference between DX7 and DX8 for example as DX7 lacked pixel shaders. This meant no bump mapping, cruder methods of rendering shadows etc. One of the innovations included in DX10/11 was volumetric clouds so smoke trails weren't just 2D blobs of particles.
The differences between DX9 and DX11 are so significant that, rather than being backwards compatible DX10/DX11 GPUs typically have to emulate DX9 support. In fact there are often significant differences within the same DX generation - anyone who suffered through a DX9a card can tell you that much. DX9a was an attempt by Nvidia to guess how coders would implement DX9 code. They guessed wrong, the upshot being that even when they were still fairly powerful cards you couldn't run a DX9 game properly on a Geforce 5 series card despite their nominal DX9 support.
Now there is a significant amount of truth in saying that a well coded DX9 engine can look way better than a poorly coded DX11 one but ultimately, once developers really take the bull by the horns, DX11 will have more future potential than DX9.
Never the less my enthusiasm for rFactor isn't dampened as it's clear ISI are very good at coding engines. GMotor2 was beautifully optimised and very flexible so I say bring on the next iteration.
Last edited by Guineapiggy; 11-07-11 at 01:52 PM.
Guineapiggy, thnx for further explanation. I agree with you about everything you say. But for now Dx11 unfortunately most of the time serves as a marketing trick. We all know way is that. When will consoles makes an upgrade, then we pc gamer will se properly dx11 coded games. And only then we will see real power of this engine or maybe of dx12 by then. Like you say, Dx11 is capable a lot more, but because of economic reasons, dx11 is almost completely held back.
#10
Microsoft will probably be on DX14 by the time people begin to take proper advantage of DX11.
I've implemented my first pseudo-volumetric clouds on 4MB Voodoo Graphics.
First truly volumetric clouds on GeForce 4Ti.
First animated volumetric clouds on GeForce 6.
(well, these on Voodoo were animated on CPU, but that doesn't count).
These are the clouds I've made using OpenGL 2.0 (kinda like DirectX 9): LINK
DirectX 10/11 will not help with the visual appearance, but can help greatly with framerate in some cases. When you have a lot of trees, particles, light sources - that's where DX10 / 11 can really help.
In racing game you could have crowds on grandstands optimized for DX11. They would look exactly the same in DX9 and DX11, but you would get better framerate with DX11. Same goes for grass, trees or maybe even tyrewalls.
DX10/11 will be no help at all with buildings, road, cars and such. These things will be done the same way they would be in DX9.
So as far as rFactor 2 goes - DX9 is sufficient for things to look good, although some more optimizations could be implemented with DX11 (but everything would look exactly the same).
So true
What bothers me the most is that you get SDK with DirectX, you get lot's of PDF's from NVIDIA and AMD, you get books like GPU Gems and you still see stuff implemented incorrectly in some mainstream games.
Last edited by K Szczech; 11-07-11 at 06:25 PM.
SRPL Shader Pack v0.92 is now available for modders: announcements / discussion
"Be kind whenever possible. It's always possible." - Dalai Lama
I dont have time to look at graphics, i need to find that bloody 0.300 ffs
So true
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote