NoGripRacing.com

Go Back   NoGripRacing Forums > PC Racing > rFactor 2

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23 November 11, 00:38   #1
gears
 
gears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Higgs Boson
Age: 46
Default rFactor 2 Monaco On-Board Video

Drool



http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.ph...Monaco-onboard

Hi-Res video here:

http://www.imagespaceinc.com/downloa...acoWIP_WMV.zip
gears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 00:45   #2
Siggs
 
Siggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Essex
Age: 23
Default

Before I was okay with rFactor 2 being behind the curve graphically, I accepted that. But having played so much of pCARS, especially the Lotus 49, then going to this...well all I can say is that the modders better be on their toes...
Siggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 00:49   #3
gears
 
gears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Higgs Boson
Age: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siggs View Post
Before I was okay with rFactor 2 being behind the curve graphically, I accepted that. But having played so much of pCARS, especially the Lotus 49, then going to this...well all I can say is that the modders better be on their toes...
Did you watch the hi-res? I think it's looks pretty good.
gears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 00:59   #4
mrpowcz
 
mrpowcz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Age: 24
Default

I think it looks amazing. Honestly that's how I imagine a sim should look.

No absurd colors and effects, make it look like a sharp photo.
mrpowcz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 01:07   #5
Siggs
 
Siggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Essex
Age: 23
Default

Yeah I 1080'd it.

I dunno, as improved as the engine is, it still seems a little...flat. And I'm not talking about the HDR, more the shadows. The art assets are brilliant, the track from an artistic point of view is incredible. But it lacks a little depth to me. I don't know if the engine supports some form of ambient occulsion now, but that would help I think. And I'm guessing more complex self shadowing in the cockpit is to be inplemented, because I sure didn't see that much.

I'm in no doubt that the physics of the sim will be bulletproof, but am I the only one who noticed that the white walls with the pillars in them...they're all 2D?

I'm all for sims looking as realistic as possible, and even though some of you may discount it because it's on the Madness engine, pCARS sure as hell can fool me with photorealism sometimes.
Siggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 01:25   #6
F2kSel
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

I'm still seeing an awful lot of texture swapping, it's time they improved that as it's a real immersion killer.
F2kSel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 01:35   #7
Vette4Life
 
Vette4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Levis, Quebec, Canada
Age: 20
Default

C.A.R.S. doesn't look realistic, there's too much going on, too much "Wow" factor... rFactor 2 is much closer to "real life" graphics...

That said, I think I need to change, it's just mind-blowing...
Vette4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 01:56   #8
Siggs
 
Siggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Essex
Age: 23
Default

Not necessarily. I run with bloom, lense flares and occasionally motion blur disabled, and with the constant lighting updates it's looking more and more realistic every day. Plus when it comes down to pure grunt, the engine runs more advanced shaders, higher poly counts, and actually records physics data at higher frequencies than were really appreciable in the Shift titles.

I'm not just jumping in to bash rF2 and praise pCARS, but that's just what struck me about this video. You can be sure I'll be picking up rF2 on release.
Siggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 01:57   #9
gears
 
gears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Higgs Boson
Age: 46
Default

Quote:
Let me take you back in time: It's 1998 and I just tried a demo version of Grand Prix Legends. I've crashed a lot and I'm going to give up for about a month. It's just too difficult...


I eventually tried the demo again, bought the full game later in the year and it became my first real love in sim racing. But how many didn't give it another shot? It's an interesting question!


Those early times with Grand Prix Legends (GPL) were hard. I remember spinning into the wall on the straights and losing control in every way imaginable. Many people gave up and it's only really those of us who stuck with it that got to experience those early and exciting days.


GPL did have training cars, but nobody used them initially. Everyone thought that they could leap straight into an F1 car with an abundance of power, no downforce and minimal grip from the tires...


Fast forward now to 2010: I just joined ISI and got my hands on an alpha version of rFactor 2. Of course when I joined the company the only historic track was Belgium. This worked out well for me because this was my favorite track in GPL... So what happened?


This happened: High revs - crash (and repeat). Have I forgotten how to drive? What is going on? Why can't I keep this thing in a straight line? This is hard! Those were my initial thoughts, and then I burst into laughter... It was like I had been transported back in time.


Just like I'd had to with GPL, I had to put the work in. I had to train myself to adapt to these race cars and I began to think about the responses we can expect from people trying them for the first time. We jokingly (with a little truth, of course) say that the historic pack in rF2 needs a disclaimer: "For the love of God, try the F2 and F3 cars first."


In this day and age, I don't think it'll take as long to adapt to the historic cars in rF2 as it took with GPL. We're all used to a certain amount of realism now. But it's certainly worth being aware of it the first time you are in the menus and selecting which car to run.


Belgium was the first track created for rFactor 2, so it has had to be updated over time as we have advanced technology. Monaco, on the other hand, was an addition that came with much of that technology in place and this allowed the guys to really go nuts with the level of detail. You can really feel the circuits in a special way when you drive them, but while Spa is a series of straights complimented by the odd tricky section, Monaco is a tricky section and nothing else... Driving an F1 car around there is like taming a wild Bull. There's so much power and so little space to use it that you have to under-drive the car.


It's funny because it almost looks less difficult to drive an F1 car on the historic Monaco than the F2 or F3 cars also included in the historics package for rFactor 2. This is completely false though. The fact is it looks easier because you can't really do certain things in that car, like putting the pedal flat to the floor... When I drive a lap at Monaco in the F1 car I find myself having to under-drive the car more than I could have imagined. If I don't? I crash.


With that in mind, I decided to do a lap of Monaco in one of the generic Formula 2 cars. This car is quite a bit easier to turn on the throttle and due to that it probably shows off the handling better than I could have while under-driving the F1s. You'll notice that my style with these cars is to throw the steering in the direction of the turn and then straighten the wheel, which keeps the momentum of turning, while I continue to turn using the throttle. The only other adjustments are usually if I turned too early or need to correct the car. You'll also notice me fighting the car at times where the road dips or changes, along with into some of the harder braking zones. You'll see the occasional botched gear shift, too.

rFactor 2 will have cars from between 1966 and 1969 included in the open beta. Some will be licensed, others will be generic 'grid fillers'. Of these cars, some will be F1, some F2 and some F3. You can have these cars all on the track at the same time if you want to.


The video above shows clearly that although the F2 car is faster on the straight, the F3 car is as fast - maybe even a little faster - in some of the trickier turns. It took me a lap to get on terms where I felt safe passing (I always treat AI as I would a human), even with that straight line advantage.


As always I have to point out that rFactor 2 is not yet completed, so there are things in the video not yet completed. The time of day on the video is the middle (least attractive and atmospheric) of the day, and this affects many of the visuals. There are even things in the video we're really not happy with, but that will probably still be in the open beta. It is what it is, it shows what it shows. Et cetera.
- Tim Wheatley
gears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 03:57   #10
mrpowcz
 
mrpowcz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Age: 24
Default

Looking forward to that.
Does anybody know if there will be more track variables? You'll have to take more care about tyres right but what about track temperature and variable grip on racing line? And wind speed (matters in hillclimb especially) It's a shame in nearly all current sims it doesn't matter whether surfaces in Finland or Equator..
mrpowcz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 04:07   #11
gears
 
gears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Higgs Boson
Age: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrpowcz View Post
Looking forward to that.
Does anybody know if there will be more track variables? You'll have to take more care about tyres right but what about track temperature and variable grip on racing line? And wind speed (matters in hillclimb especially) It's a shame in nearly all current sims it doesn't matter whether surfaces in Finland or Equator..
From what I've read, the tracks and tires will be truly live. Everything will affect tires and grip and no two laps will ever be the same.

The track will "evolve" during a race due to conditions (weather and temps what happens on the track) and even the racing line will change.
gears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 04:24   #12
mrpowcz
 
mrpowcz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Age: 24
Default

That's epic then, I can see myself stuck in some formula vee for first weeks because I really dislike crashing!
mrpowcz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 07:23   #13
Brock Yates
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siggs View Post
Not necessarily. I run with bloom, lense flares and occasionally motion blur disabled, and with the constant lighting updates it's looking more and more realistic every day. Plus when it comes down to pure grunt, the engine runs more advanced shaders, higher poly counts, and actually records physics data at higher frequencies than were really appreciable in the Shift titles.
There is difference between video realism (what we see on TV) and eye realism (what we actually see). I believe CARS do quite well in video realism, while rF2 is trying to achieve eye realism. At least by this video it seems to work okay. For me, I like my driving with eye realism and replays with video realism. But you can't usually have both.
Brock Yates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 08:39   #14
hpiracer
Uploader
 
hpiracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vermont, USA
Age: 47
Default

looks okay, and the "hand over the top" when steering, nice touch... but what about shifting?

Still no animated shifting.

Watching the suspension react is nice, too.
hpiracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 11:08   #15
hoboholic
Hobo strikes again!
 
hoboholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Western Sydney, Australia
Default

Quote:
rF2 needs a disclaimer: "For the love of God, try the F2 and F3 cars first."
I love it
hoboholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 11:39   #16
DurgeDriven
 
DurgeDriven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

There is me GPL2
Why not just split it up like Simbin.
Drop everything else and finish the 1966-1969 and period tracks first.


Forget all the rest .............you can do that in expansion packs.
DurgeDriven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 11:55   #17
whoops
Uploader
 
whoops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 45
Default

Does look nice, but the sounds are at best poor if not grating.
whoops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 12:07   #18
mrpowcz
 
mrpowcz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Age: 24
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whoops View Post
the sounds are at best poor if not grating.
Yes that's true. They're terrible. Default sounds in rf1 were no better honestly. I wonder why, anyway we already have good sounds for most of these cars in rf1 so it's only a matter of few weeks before they will be "fixed"
mrpowcz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 13:39   #19
Siggs
 
Siggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Essex
Age: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Yates View Post
There is difference between video realism (what we see on TV) and eye realism (what we actually see). I believe CARS do quite well in video realism, while rF2 is trying to achieve eye realism. At least by this video it seems to work okay. For me, I like my driving with eye realism and replays with video realism. But you can't usually have both.
On the contrary, I think pCARS pulls of 'eye realism' very well, but atm isn't suited to 'video realism'. What did strike me about the video though, was the buffeting and camera movement going up the hill. That was very good.
Siggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 13:44   #20
John DiFool
 
John DiFool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gears View Post
From what I've read, the tracks and tires will be truly live. Everything will affect tires and grip and no two laps will ever be the same.

The track will "evolve" during a race due to conditions (weather and temps what happens on the track) and even the racing line will change.
I wonder how all this will affect talent differentials (i.e. Aliens vs. everyone else ). I guess in the end the Aliens will still be Aliens, but they often have the reputation of optimizing the hell out of every aspect of their setups (and yeah driving the hell out of them too). If no setup can ever be optimal in a dynamic environment like rF2 seems to be, however, it might bring them back to the field a bit.
John DiFool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 14:25   #21
freejrs
 
freejrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Shire
Age: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siggs View Post

I dunno, as improved as the engine is, it still seems a little...flat. And I'm not talking about the HDR, more the shadows. The art assets are brilliant, the track from an artistic point of view is incredible. But it lacks a little depth to me. I don't know if the engine supports some form of ambient occulsion now, but that would help I think. And I'm guessing more complex self shadowing in the cockpit is to be inplemented, because I sure didn't see that much.

I'm all for sims looking as realistic as possible, and even though some of you may discount it because it's on the Madness engine, pCARS sure as hell can fool me with photorealism sometimes.
Personally after watching that low res video of Monaco I think rFactor 2 will look much more realistic than CARS does now.

CARS for me does not look realistic. It has absolutely amazing graphics but they are not very life like really. You say you can be fooled by CARS photorealism................I would say it is blinding you with all the fancy effects and lighting.

Anyway I will be driving both and Im sure they will be more than satisfactory in all aspects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vette4Life View Post
C.A.R.S. doesn't look realistic, there's too much going on, too much "Wow" factor... rFactor 2 is much closer to "real life" graphics...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or what he said!!
freejrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 15:05   #22
gears
 
gears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Higgs Boson
Age: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whoops View Post
Does look nice, but the sounds are at best poor if not grating.
Quote:
Edit: Please note that the engine noise got DESTROYED by youtube and it now sounds like a tin can. Download the WMV if you want to hear it a little less 'abused'.
- Tim Wheatley

http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.ph...Monaco-onboard
gears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 15:12   #23
KittX
Baddie
 
KittX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St. Petersburg, Russia
Age: 26
Default

What scares me - is the shadows.
They are still pixelated and they're still casting only from few selected objects - so I suppose they will be the same technology as in rFactor 1. Which means, they would look bad and eat a lot of FPS.
Sort of disappointed about this, after seeing how shadows work on latest games like GT5 or Skyrim... there is more complex shadow casting, and so intense, that it isn't shadow which has some little cast on the ground/road/etc; but it is a little part of sunlight which casts through the complex shadow. And all of that doesn't affect on FPS that much, how, for example, few 1024x1024 shadow casters affect on FPS in rF1.

I so much hope I'm wrong. I so much hope the shadows are at least faster here, than in rF1.
KittX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 15:15   #24
kamikaze666
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

Gt5 has the best midday lightning, al other games need a pretty evening sky to make you go ohhhhh.....
kamikaze666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 16:51   #25
Athanase
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU_xk...391CB8C700F1A6
Athanase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 16:55   #26
Kazumi
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freejrs View Post
Personally after watching that low res video of Monaco I think rFactor 2 will look much more realistic than CARS does now.
yet it's so easy to emulate look of older games in mad engine (like with most newer games with advanced lighting)

Quote:
Originally Posted by freejrs View Post
CARS for me does not look realistic. It has absolutely amazing graphics but they are not very life like really. You say you can be fooled by CARS photorealism................I would say it is blinding you with all the fancy effects and lighting.
they definitely need to work on photorealism look.

while ISI needs to work on materials. or leave everything moddable so modders can add own shaders, tonemapping and so on

cars is pre-alpha, rFactor 2??
Kazumi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 17:10   #27
edubz123
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chicago USA
Default

IMO, rF2 falls short while pCARS overshoots the graphical "realism" target. Both still have work to do. Ian admits pCARS is pre-alpha, how does ISI categorize rF2 at this point? (I did see the WIP in the video but that needs more definition)

Regardless, we are gonna have some pretty good games in 2012.
edubz123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 18:13   #28
Siggs
 
Siggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Essex
Age: 23
Default

well it must be well into beta by now, with the public one coming sometime soon. I don't think many parts of the game are in alpha anymore. But that's just my opinion
Siggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23 November 11, 18:23   #29
Siggs
 
Siggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Essex
Age: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freejrs View Post
Personally after watching that low res video of Monaco I think rFactor 2 will look much more realistic than CARS does now.

CARS for me does not look realistic. It has absolutely amazing graphics but they are not very life like really. You say you can be fooled by CARS photorealism................I would say it is blinding you with all the fancy effects and lighting.
Watch it in 1080, the resolution you'll be driving at, and there are things that'll break the illusion.

Looking back at what I said, I think people including myself are overusing the term 'photorealism'. In reality there are many different effects photographers use to achieve the best results, and not all of them reflect reality as we see it.

So when I say photorealism in relation to pCARS, what I mean is that a still, well composed image from the game can be mistaken for a photograph from a real motorsports event. Not necessarily the actual driving of the cars, irl.

Like I pointed out to Brock in my last post, I think pCARS pulls off 'eye' realism very well; the way it looks in stills is very, very convincing. But it seems like a common consensus that it's less adept at 'video' realism, such as the sim in motion. rF2 does this well, like I pointed out, with it's nice camera shaking effect at speed.
Siggs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 November 11, 00:50   #30
bosanac1
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

I never liked any of screenshots from RF2

but now after seeing the video

it looks fantastic exceeded all expectations


anyone know if that was running with all settings on full?



also wouldn't hurt to see some modern car video
bosanac1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 November 11, 13:31   #31
freejrs
 
freejrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Shire
Age: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosanac1 View Post
also wouldn't hurt to see some modern car video
No, no, no!!!!

Just 60's and before thank you very much!!!
freejrs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24 November 11, 18:39   #32
Vette4Life
 
Vette4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Levis, Quebec, Canada
Age: 20
Default

60's F1/F2/F3 for the win !

Then you can add 70's Le Mans racing and 80's Touring Car...

Maybe V8 Supercars, from there good to go ! XD
Vette4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 November 11, 02:49   #33
mrpowcz
 
mrpowcz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Age: 24
Default

And what about proper group B rallying! I remember more than a year ago one of first rf2 screenshots was showing some dirt track.. but since then there was not a single mention about rallying if I'm not mistaken.
I know it's focused on circuit racing but it would be wonderful if there was decent rally part as well. In all current sims (except godly RBR..) dirt surfaces are basically just tarmacs with different texture and low grip.
mrpowcz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 November 11, 04:35   #34
jtbo
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Default

It does look like similar what you get when you record with compact digital camera what comes to how light is showing up, burns way too easily to white, imo.

Still better than rest, but not enough subtle effect when I compare what I see with my own eyes.

Trees, when light comes from certain angle, seem to look quite neon to me, when they turn to shadow it is better, maybe same effect is causing this to be too strong effect than with walls and sky etc?

Also tires become quite white at times and some mountain at horizont is getting quite white to what I would except to see with my own eyes, with some cheap compact digital camera thus would be excepted.

That is what areas I can see that would be good for improvements, sure those trees quite pop up, but is it auto detail level adjustment in work or do they pop up like that with draw distance set to max too? I would guess auto detail level, but there is not knowing.

I like how sound changes, maybe other car was bit too loud compared to own car in there? Anyway there seem to be some sound reflections now which is good, also exiting tunnel had nice and quite realistic sound effect, hopefully those were dynamic effects and not canned ones.

Looks very promising to me at least.
jtbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 November 11, 05:20   #35
DurgeDriven
 
DurgeDriven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Default

I don't know this decade we more concerned about visuals.

For mine the F2 looks more alive and on the edge then the C.A.R.S. Lotus

Taking into account the difference in GPL formulas the F1 should dance.
DurgeDriven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 November 11, 21:27   #36
jtbo
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DurgeDriven View Post
I don't know this decade we more concerned about visuals.

For mine the F2 looks more alive and on the edge then the C.A.R.S. Lotus

Taking into account the difference in GPL formulas the F1 should dance.
Must be that driving itself starts to be at enough good level so one don't really desire much improvements there, so minor things like graphics are being more of subject of discussion then.

But for me that burning white of everything looks actually worse than rF1, I consider it being wow factor to get casual players to say wow and boosting sales, but it is not very real world looking. It is good feature but it is quite a overdone, I think which makes it worse than without that feature. It does not help that everyone does it.
jtbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 November 11, 21:31   #37
Vette4Life
 
Vette4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Levis, Quebec, Canada
Age: 20
Default

The thing is, it's in the middle of the day and Monaco is a very white city so... It kinda reflects light a lot
Vette4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 November 11, 21:38   #38
gears
 
gears's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Higgs Boson
Age: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DurgeDriven View Post
I don't know this decade we more concerned about visuals.

For mine the F2 looks more alive and on the edge then the C.A.R.S. Lotus

Taking into account the difference in GPL formulas the F1 should dance.
gears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 November 11, 21:58   #39
trotter2k
LedNeon
 
trotter2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Default

lost for words
trotter2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 November 11, 22:13   #40
jtbo
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vette4Life View Post
The thing is, it's in the middle of the day and Monaco is a very white city so... It kinda reflects light a lot
If your eyes are replace by cheap digital pocket cameras, then surely it is how it looks, but human eye is bit more adaptive than that, imo

It would be ok even in external cameras, but driver's eye view should show virtual world how eyes show it, imo.
jtbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 December 11, 18:31   #41
erictheez1
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siggs View Post
Before I was okay with rFactor 2 being behind the curve graphically, I accepted that. But having played so much of pCARS, especially the Lotus 49, then going to this...well all I can say is that the modders better be on their toes...
Agree 100%. There are people whose immersion factor doesn't get tainted by bad graphics and those that do. Opinions on both sides can be true for each person.

I have no problem trading RF2's clutch heat wear for pCARS gorgeously realistic DX11 graphics. I wouldn't trade them if it meant no proper tire degradation or NFS: The Run physics, let's say.

Have fun with games, yo.
erictheez1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22 December 11, 20:23   #42
TheRealJohnRob
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtbo View Post
If your eyes are replace by cheap digital pocket cameras, then surely it is how it looks, but human eye is bit more adaptive than that, imo

It would be ok even in external cameras, but driver's eye view should show virtual world how eyes show it, imo.
it's sort of hard to do this, as everyone's eyes are different. as much as 10% of the male population is color deficient or color blind, myself included. I can't tell the difference between some shades of green and grey. In addition to this, people have differing sensitivity to light. what is extremely bright to some people is ok to others, as well as how well you can see in the dark.

You are right though, eyes are usually more adaptive than cameras. The problem comes in programming it. you'd have to take into account pupils constantly changing dilation based on how much light is reflected on screen and how quick that change takes place. Also sudden changes in lateral and longitudinal g-forces will have an effect on vision, as well as extremely high g-forces.
TheRealJohnRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:12.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

www.nogripracing.com 2003 - 2014
Page generated in 0.32041 seconds with 9 queries