We are talking of ACC as example of good graphic/performance not promoting the game but talking about game engine and the one speaking here are the most loyal Reiza fan I know so don't worry.
If that were the case, we wouldn't even be here or care about thinking out loud on what could be a good engine for AMS2. Exactly. We're discussing possible AMS2 engine options, talking about pros and cons. As an example for UE4 engine quality vs old AC engine, here are two screenshots. Again, UE4 is flashy, cinematic, and gives a more realistic overall feeling. But if you look into the details, sharpness, how clean the picture is, UE4 looses big time. And this is on all EPIC settings. A great example is the fence in the background. Repeat, example. I'm not sorry about how a fence looks, but the overall picture quality of the engine. I'd much rather have a clean, sharp, stable image like in AMS or AC, than a cinematic but fuzzy, blurry, compromised image as what UE4 can offer.
turn off half post processing effects and you will have your clean and sharp image engine is fine, proper usage is a different matter
Ehm... Right. I wish... If I turn off AA, I get jaggies. Other options are FXAA (blurry) or Temporal AA (glitchy and blurry). No other is supported by UE4. Turning down Effects to Medium or lower will remove rain completely and screen space reflections. Turning down Shadows below High and you'll get the equivalent of AC low shadows. The whole issue starts with deferred rendering, and how badly UE4 is built on that. The whole image is generated through post processing really. So, how exactly should I use it properly?
oh, that sentence about usage was to devs, as an overall statement good thing we atleast can turn off blur etc, for example to turn it off in arma 2 you had to down quality of effects (or pp) because they were bound together I launched the game just to check out that net and i must admit its terrible but strangly enough in some cases it was rendered properly even at some longer distances and looked good hmmm, well atleast its not a thing i can see while driving. I hope it will perform well enough in VR You can count me in in our unreal look⢠hate club
It is possible and, if you have even half an open mind,,,, likely, to appreciate multiple simulations at the same time. You are bashing ACC as a console title... that's pretty ridiculous. Kunos are talented developers and Assetto Corsa was enjoyed by many. Their new title is very early in development and show no signs of failing as a sim. Liking Kunos's work does not mean Reiza are any less talented. I try, and thus buy, all sims and am happy to support sim developers. All titles shine in their own way. Sure, I have preferences... but it is easy to see good in every title. Some just appeal more than others.
ACC looks perfect by just using 200 (double) resolution. All the annoying bluriness is gone. We'll see what compromises are required to maintain frame rates, but as expected, the bluriness can be adjusted out (with several different combinations of settings) and is on by default as a performance aid. I expect that by increasing resolution (perhaps by less than double), the AA settings can be backed off accordingly and you still end up with good performance and an attractive result. Not perfect...nothing is. But far better than AMS or rF2 in appearance and far better than rF2 in performance. And it is not even optimized yet...
Nope, you missed the point of discussion here, AMS is near to perfection simulation side so the only thing it needs to improve is graphic...the problem discussed here is, changing graphic engine...can improve or doing a mess of physics engine?
Have you read through the posts in this thread? They are all about graphics...graphics...graphics... ACC...the forum is filled with people talking about graphics. AMS...everybody complains about graphics. F1 2018...first posts...graphics. rF2...graphics. Whatever people...i love AMS for what it is. Its a fantastic simulation that stands on top of my preferences. That's it, now its time to disagree
Yes, it's about graphics. And for the same reason, we all love AMS for what it is. And don't want AMS2 to get ruined with a bad, blurry, 'hollywood' engine. THAT is why we're talking about graphics engines.
Nor do we want it ruined by a slow, plodding and difficult to work with rF2 graphics engine. This is a seriously thorny conundrum. None of the options are clearly good and none of them will be easy.
hopefully window for next title official announcement is quite accurate and we will have our news and engine soon "hopefully when time comes for an official announcement (in a matter of weeks rather than months) the wait will have proven worthwhile"
Huge amount of complaints over at ACC forums about blurry graphics. It is a major issue if you compare AC to ACC and is a disappointment at first. Kunos made a decision to use some blur as a performance balancing choice. Turns out it was a not popular one, but I bet once we get more cars and effects, people will realize their systems are struggling to some extent. What is important to Reiza is that a different choice could have been made--to retain the razor sharp images. They can be restored easily by a user in several ways. Increase scaling resolution (drops FPS). Turn off some post-processing effects (raises FPS). Do a combination (some balance likely). As a user, on a v0.1 product, I can already tune precisely to my liking and find the balance of visuals versus performance THAT I PERSONALLY PREFER. Once adjusted, the graphics quality, lighting, and corollary capabilities are superior to AC and vastly superior to AMS. It uses a ubiquitous graphics engine that modders from all over the world understand and can work with. rF2: After more than five years and several generations of botched shaders and lighting strategies, another major improvement has just been announced. It looks great, but it is not clear whether it applies only to new content specifically modelled to take advantage of it, or is magically universal. So far, nothing in rF2 has been universal. Assuming this is not, how many YEARS will we be waiting for corresponding content updates from S397 and independent modders? After more than 5 years, we still have very limited ability to balance visuals versus performance from inside the title. Most of us do it from outside via our graphics card profiler settings. The performance has always been sub-par relative to other graphics engines. It has been improved a lot in the past few years, but everything else that it is competing against has improved even more/faster, so it is still sub-par by comparison. If you don't like the look of rF2, too bad. You're stuck with it. How many dozen threads have we seen over the years arguing about this? Too many. So far, and this may change once more and better polished content gets thrown in to ACC, it would appear to me that Kunos made a wise decision to go with the Unreal engine. They too had no easy choice to bridge their current title to a new one if they wanted to add all the advanced graphics that titles like PC2 contain. But if you have to make a major break from the present system, there are two choices here: adopt a poorly performing, slow to evolve, fraught with complaints, seemingly arcane to manipulate graphics engine that maintains some greater ties to the present, or, go with an industry-standard package that is so popular and widely used that its owners will ensure that it remains up-to-date and competitive with industry standards and practices. Since it is designed for a wide range of applications, it also has the deep user-controlled adjustments that, though a bit fiddly to learn, ultimately allow the careful tuning and balancing that sim racing fanatics like us need to maintain proper control of our virtual vehicles (without which the whole point of the hobby is lost). As a safe bridge step, I would keep AMS exactly as it is now physics-wise. It works and feels as good or better than anything else out there. Spend the time and money to bolt UE on to the current engine. Once that is perfected, a next generation step could be to adopt more rF2 simulation technology from S397--it might be mature by then, too. I had originally hoped that S397 and eiza could take this step together. Maybe they will? But the recent shader announcement was the worst news I have read from S397 in a long time. The new shaders look wonderful, but it signals to me that they are wedded to plodding along with the old engine for the foreseeable future. The only fact that would change my view on all of this is if someone could prove to me that the current (AMS) simulation engine is unable to work with Unreal or that there is some risk it won't synchronize properly. In other words, the end product of all the hard work would or could be inferior from the physics part of the simulation equation compared to using the S397 rF2 engine. Otherwise, I know what I would like to see happen. But what about cost? How much extra (assuming it is extra) would Unreal cost to license? Let's be honest about it. I will be the first funder if it is a significant difference. Sadly, the only way for the amazing work already invested in AMS to reach a broader audience (than us few Reiza fanatics) and command regular game prices (instead of half or less) is if there is attractive visuals to go with it. How many visually appealing, but otherwise empty or pathetic racing games do we need to monitor before we learn that lesson? I invested in PCars and made enough money from it to buy AMS and all its content multiple times over. I only played it for a few hours...just long enough to confirm it wasn't a serious sim contender. This is the equation that must be changed for justice to prevail A pretty face is all it will take.
Well top of my list is VR ! That is graphics , albeit somewhat lower than some care to enjoy but its graphics nonetheless ! We all want to simulate racing as closely as possible to the real deal and the visuals are a massive part of that , while the physics in AMS seem about as close to real as any other sim it doesn't get a look in from me because #NoVRnoBuy (although i bought AMS well before i had VR) and if ACC matches AC in physics but improves on visuals while maintaining good performance why wouldn't people be talking about graphics ! Graphics are what trick our brains into thinking we are actually driving a real car along with the great physics , our toy wheels and for us VR users having great immersive graphics in out faces truly brings it home . Bring on the graphics conversations
Graphics in AMS are fine - like i keep repeating myself: gras and shadows is all that needs some more love and then we're good to go. I turn off all blinky blinky post processing in my games anyways, so all my sims look pretty much like AMS except for in-car shadows and nicer looking gras.
Codemasters dont think so ! As Dirt rally 2.0 isnt getting VR apparently Dirt Rally 2.0 Has No VR Support Planned
