Quote from ajp71 :

I know some people may like having the flashest graphics but IMO they are just one of the methods of outputing information to you. Sound and a decent method of input are as important IMO. I'm not whining at all, I personally can play LFS with fairly high graphics settings (bad at starts) and I think LFS does look good, but not as good as these GPL tracks IMO. Yes they are 2D everything, but do you actually ever notice some 3D caravan or spectator and would the time not have been better spent revising the physics?

Yes, physics comes first but detail on tracks is important too. If it lacks in detail it doesn't look or feel like a real track. It's not that important when actually driving but in case with this GPL version it's just too plain nowadays. In real life it's a track where every corner is different but in this GPL version many of them at least looks the same, because there is no extra detail which would remind you about the braking points etc. Of course I don't agree when the fancy detail on tracks goes ahead of the accuracy or physics.

Btw detail on tracks also affects the feel of speed. The more stuff goes by your monitor, the faster it feels.

I guess si3v will do LODs on the track, so I wouldn't worry if you don't like/need details and scenery.

If some of you people want to try racing namie, feel free to take a look in http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=2843023#post2843023
I'm probably going to be online again today around 21 CET (20 GMT) hosting the server, so please do join.

The interface is wonky and sometimes the synchro on entering the game doesn't work, collisions don't work (so race clean ) and you can't join a race in progress if you are wondering why you can't join although the game is being displayed.

I will post the IP later in that thread again.

Quote from deggis :

Yes, physics comes first but detail on tracks is important too. If it lacks in detail it doesn't look or feel like a real track. It's not that important when actually driving but in case with this GPL version it's just too plain nowadays. In real life it's a track where every corner is different but in this GPL version many of them at least looks the same, because there is no extra detail which would remind you about the braking points etc. Of course I don't agree when the fancy detail on tracks goes ahead of the accuracy or physics.

Btw detail on tracks also affects the feel of speed. The more stuff goes by your monitor, the faster it feels.

Firstly there were no braking markers at the 'ring in the 60s and even in the 80s there were only a few. As for the writing on the track it would instantly loose the feel of 60s racing as it definatley was not there in the 60s, some may have got there by the 80s, but frankly from an in car cam you don't notice it in the 956. If you have the 956 In Car DVD then you'll see that really you notice very few extra objects round the 'ring, (except for the tires walls etc. that weren't there in the 70s) with the exception of a few breathtaking views, but I doubt almost any version will be able to recreate the depth perseption from a number of miles away

You are right that detail is very important, in the track surface, on the tracks that use a 3D mesh to determine geometery (LFS, nk, ISI) they can simply be so undetailed, and therefore bumpy that they cannot be driven on. I'd still rather have an accurately modeled track that is just fantastic to drive on, even if you have to use a bit more imagination It's all personal preference, but I've always felt the Papy system does work very well, there are a large number of tracks out there, some are bad ugly ones that look like they've been made in MS Paint but there are some real gems as well. I don't know if you have N2003 but I guess you'd not even look at a track like Symmons Plains simply because of the graphics. If you gave it a chance you'd find it's one of the tracks in any sim. Attached a few pics of the best N2003 tracks, none of which are let down by the graphics IMO, not saying they couldn't been done better but they are still great as they are.

Quote from ajp71 :

Firstly there were no braking markers at the 'ring in the 60s and even in the 80s there were only a few.

I didn't mean braking markers. When I said reminding the braking points I meant all the extra little detail on the track/scenery which helps to remind hard corners on such a long track.

Quote :

As for the writing on the track it would instantly loose the feel of 60s racing as it definatley was not there in the 60s, some may have got there by the 80s, but frankly from an in car cam you don't notice it in the 956.

I wonder is that netKar Pro version made to look like the track looks right now. Because it's made for the GT '70 mod of course it would be logical to make 70's version. But I don't care as long as it's accurate for the year it tries to simulate.

Quote :

I don't know if you have N2003 but I guess you'd not even look at a track like Symmons Plains simply because of the graphics.

I don't have N2003 and actually I've never even played it but what do you mean by that? I think the original subject was that why the netKar Pro Nyrb version should look graphically like 8-years-old game just because we don't need to see a bird flying on the sky while driving.

As for the GPL 'ring there are plenty of braking reference points to use (except in a few parts on the back of the circuit where it all looks the same on the 956 DVD). What I'm still trying to argue is that having overly complex graphics (regardless of how well you can play them) will always take more time to get your eyes to see what's really happening and become apart of the picture.

Quote from ajp71 :

As for the GPL 'ring there are plenty of braking reference points to use (except in a few parts on the back of the circuit where it all looks the same on the 956 DVD). What I'm still trying to argue is that having overly complex graphics (regardless of how well you can play them) will always take more time to get your eyes to see what's really happening and become apart of the picture.

Real life has many many details that can distract your attention from the track, so I don't really get your point of why not having nice looking graphics with many details

So... what do you guys think ahbout netKar Pro? It makes a lot of big promises, and I have to say it looks great! Do you think they will keep them, or we will be dissapointed like it happened with rFactor?

Well, we have to see what the final product looks like. Namie shows the potential NKPro has, but nothing more.

For me, rFactor was no disappointment, simply because I already knew that no matter what you do to the ISI engine, it's still the same old "floating on the track" feel everytime, so it actually lived up to my expectations, namely it being crap (IMO, remember).

Nevertheless, I'm eagerly awaiting NKPro's release because Namie simply doesn't cut it. Especially the newest track, Monaco, shows its weak points and this pretty much soaked all the fun out of it.

Quote from ATHome :

Real life has many many details that can distract your attention from the track, so I don't really get your point of why not having nice looking graphics with many details

In reality there are infanatley more tiny details everywhere that big objects aren't so distracting. I'm sure if you painted every trackside object in floresant pink drivers would get distracted by them.

The point is in reality drivers will not be constantly checking these side objects. On a screen you get no concept of pheripheral vision so adding these objects in full detail draws ones attention to what are just flashes of colour in the corner of your eye IRL, I maintain there are three ways to make these seem real - 1. Blur them 2. Make them less detailed. 3. Using trick/curved screens track IR etc.

Until we are all buying new specialist screens we simply can't have unblurred objects at full detail.

Out of intrest what do you think of the GTR2 screenshots, I personally think they look awful, sure they've got much more advanced lighting than any Papy product but because of this it looks artificial. The Papy sims just give a much plainer image for your brain to add the depth to.

I must say you're putting forward an extremely bizarre argument ajp. You seem to be suggesting that graphics should not resemble real life at all, and should only really consist of the fundamental elements e.g. road and cars.

The job of graphics in a computer game is to increase involvement and illusion. The closer they are to reality, the more immersive the environment. Users aren't going to be distracted by a tree, a spectator or a hotdog stand on a computer game any more than they are in real life.

illepall gtr2 looks artificial vs papy sims? rofl

I still think GTP looks better than GTR2, of course I don't know what it looks like in motion, which is where the Papy graphics outshine just about everything.

I couldn't find any decent high res GTP screens so these really don't do it justice, still not bad IMO.

http://www.bhmotorsports.com/GTR2/screenshot/15894
http://www.gtpzone.com/images/gtp-screen1-large.jpg
http://www.gtpzone.com/images/gtp-screen2-large.jpg

Quote from durbster :

I must say you're putting forward an extremely bizarre argument ajp. You seem to be suggesting that graphics should not resemble real life at all, and should only really consist of the fundamental elements e.g. road and cars.

The job of graphics in a computer game is to increase involvement and illusion. The closer they are to reality, the more immersive the environment. Users aren't going to be distracted by a tree, a spectator or a hotdog stand on a computer game any more than they are in real life.

ajp's argument is exactly what you say... On stills (renders) the environment may look real, but the way we look at the screen and objects make them completely unreal because of the amount of detail we get... What you see on the screen, is not what you'd see in a real car on the same track... So he pleads for less detail to make it more realistic.

hmm, looks nice actually - but that screen of gtr is very low quality, the new screens are awesome

Quote from DejaVu :

hmm, looks nice actually - but that screen of gtr is very low quality, the new screens are awesome

http://www.sim-racer.de/index. ... n=showimages&galid=92

Those shots are impressive yet the shading still makes everything either far too glossy or matte.

Yeah this image of the wet track in front of the car is just way too icy and glossy. In real life it would never be a perfectly smooth water surface like that... it would be in blotches. And the fact that they have this glossy reflectiveness, it just makes the cars appear to float on the pavement... (as seen in that Maranello pic)

And particularly, there is no spray or wash coming FROM the tires, it is just some rocketbooster-mist-puff coming out the rear :zombie: Still old GTR to me, and just visually it looks fine, but things like this just bug me.

These are so blatantley edited, reminds me of err... Codies :doh:

http://www.sim-racer.de/system ... ?img_id=928&size=full

Obvious photoshoped blur, couldn't even be bothered/able to run AA on the cockpit on the machine used to take offical screenshots. Also the cockpit just looks too detailed for me, I'd rather not have details like the LG plate as the more detail you add in one place the more you notice the lack of it in other places.

Ermmm well I cannot open that pic (just get a bunch of code and crap), have a different link???

BTW, I saw this in the code:

(probably the tool they used to resize the pics for the web, but still, silly )

Meh, it works in IE. And yes, it's an obvious photoshop...

This one: http://www.sim-racer.de/index. ... p;area=2&ascdesc=desc

Intresting find tweak, could never have guessed

Funny that almost all the comments regarding GTR 2 bash the graphics. Like it was the most important thing in a sim. On the other hand for SimBim (or now Blimey! Games) it has been (for example in GTL).

It isn't the most important, but the way I feel about graphics that are blatantly overdone or not done properly.... it just is horrible. I wouldn't stand having the glassy track, it just doesn't look right. Neither does racing in the rain look like that at all.

I love the detail of the cars and interiors, they get that stuff spot on, but a lot of the small miscellaneous exterior & track effects make a big difference in either making it look good or look really bad. I love watching replays too, and having something that looks like that Maranello or something, it would look wierd. Take that screenshot, and show it to some people, see what their first reactions and comments are. A friend of mine just said "WTF?" "I never knew Ferraris could drive on glass tables, damn"