Agreed. I also have relatively old PC, but I can run AMS2 on high graphics and still get 60fps, whereas in raceroom I have to run on medium and even then the framerate can vary massively. Even ACC has sorted out optimisation.
You can overcome any need for adapting by enough practice, so it's a moot point. And anyway, the features you mention are only really useful for dedicated endurance racers. Otherwise, they don't make any significant difference. Dirt brought on track or safety cars are much more frequent elements of a race and they're equally relevant for sprint races and endurance races. And I don't see anybody (save for @Yossarian above) mentioning any of those elements as necessary. Why? Because the competition doesn't boast having them. This isn't about what makes a proper sim, this is about Raceroom not having nice things that other sims have. Well, do they make a difference more frequently in other sims? I'm going to admit I don't play that much of them, only try them out from time to time, but I watch content creators playing the competition a lot just to keep an ear to the ground. I've maybe only once heard somebody mention that maybe the track got a bit warmer in a specific spot and that required him to slightly change his approach to the corner. Nothing more sun-position-related in hours and hours of content I've watched. Seems like another very endurance-specific feature that barely anybody makes use of, if that even was the case in the example I mentioned. As far as super smooth surface goes, I think it's more about the sim itself and how it translates bumps than about the track quality. There's no signficant difference between regular tracks and laser-scanned Nurburgring Nordschleife. It uses the same laser scan that's used in Assetto Corsa and you can feel the surface being more detailed in AC. At the same time if you examine the track surface visually, you can see a lot of bumps even on regular tracks in Raceroom, as well as observe the car's bumpy behaviour, so it's not glass flat like it admittedly feels. The issue seems to be somewhere else. It depends on the car when it comes to iRacing. Their recent cars like W12 and F4 were made with different approach - some attribute this to cooperation with Mercedes on W12 - and the update to GT3 seems to make use of this approach as well. There's still a lot of cars there that use their previous, iceRacing approach with on-off grip. GT3 got updated, obviously because it's the most popular class, but will everything else get updated the way Raceroom updates their entire content one class by one? Doubt it. So no, you can't jump into iRacing without issues, you can't even jump between cars within iRacing without issues. Anyway, the step in the right direction is also the admission of guilt, and we're talking about a sim that's by far the most popular one on the market - despite having a deeply flawed simulation approach for most of its time on the market. Another proof of how the community's priorities are crooked. ACC - yes, the tyres are too sensitive to pressure changes, to the point where you need to fight for a single tenth of a PSI to remain competitive. That's absurd on its own, but there's also the issue of tyre drag when pushed. You cannot lean on the tyre in ACC the way you can do that in Raceroom or in newer iRacing cars - or how racing drivers claim to be able in real cars, which you can even observe in F1 when drivers ruin their tyres on a single quali lap to extract the maximum speed (or even on a single sector in case of some tracks!). If you try to do that in ACC, you'll lose time instead of tyres. That's not how a tyre works. ACC requires you to drive surgically to extract the best time, and that's not how the gentlemen-friendly GT3 cars - or any cars on a rubber tyre at all - should drive. That's why ACC, despite simulating all the bells and whistles of a GT3 car, including the specific numbers of TC and ABS steps, is still an inferior GT3 simulation as far as I'm concerned. It nails all the details, but it fails at a fundamental thing. So no, I cannot jump into ACC without issues, because I cannot count on the tyres there to accept my inputs the way Raceroom does and let me be on equal pace. Even the likes of Jardier had issues with getting to their pace in ACC because it's so strict. And I have to say it's quite telling that you're letting those sims off the hook quite easily for pretty significant flaws in their base driving model, while grilling Raceroom hard because the sun and the shadows don't do enough for your track condition. Talking about priorities, again. I'll concede the AI point. I admit it has its flaws and I cannot make a strong defense there, even though I enjoy it a lot, experience no trouble with it and consider it a strong point of the sim. And you actually don't make much of a case against it anyway, you're just tempering my initial rave appraisal.
I've returned to this game from ACC, as they killed the ffb with last update. And I have to say, RRE is a lot more entertaining, from the get go, and the FFB is just on point. Yes RRE would benefit from updates everywhere, but I for one would not want it to lose what it has, with those updates. Things that currently bug me about RRE: The AI: Do they have vision? Are they self aware, or aware of their surroundings? The cars have zero physical weight to them (this appears applicable to rf2, ac, acc, iceRentals, etal as well), Slightest nudge and away you go. This needs sorting out. Just a ramble. J
I don't get that. I'm seeing way higher framerates in R3E with maximum graphics settings than in ACC or AMS2.
Time multipler kills the FPS on most tracks (-10-15 FPS).Very easy to test @ Nords 24 hours and Spa combined with 29 Ai cars and visible. Put otterhud on top and bang,that was it!
It's not a moot point, but we seem to misunderstand on the definition if dynamicity. For me having fuel consumption and tyre wear doesn't mean I need to adapt to dynamic conditions. Since both aspects are always identical, there is no need to dynamically adapt to it in any way. You just test it beforehand, set the strategy and go. The rate in which tyres degrade or fuel is consumed is always the same as long as you drive the same. It's not dependent on any external factors (apart from traffic). Dirt on the track would be great, we could probably list hundred of things Raceroom could have. Me not listing dirt on the track as an example of track dynamics is hardly an argument against having at least the more common aspects implemented. This argument is kind of defeating itself. I was talking about general aspects of weather, temperature and surface dynamicity missing from the game. You are somehow trying to refute it by stating that current basic implementation of time of day doesn't do anything. Don't you see you're proving my point?
I'm not talking about strategy, I'm talking about handling. It changes over the course of the race, and so you need to change your driving style - just like you would on a slippery track. If you don't drive differently depending on your fuel load and your tyre condition, it means you don't drive remotely close to the car's limit. Unless you memorize the differences in handling for each stint, your argument doesn't make sense. And if you do, my argument about enough practice negating the need for adaptability still stands. You can practice for all conditions possible until there's nothing new to adapt to. It's not an argument against implementing those features. I agreed it would be nice to have them. It's an argument against priorities that make you hold lack of them against Raceroom, while letting other sims off the hook when they lack more needed features and have more fundamental flaws. I'm not proving your point by simply admitting those features are missing, because the discussion isn't about what's missing and what's not, it's about what matters and what doesn't. You're claiming Raceroom's inferiority based on things that matter the least, while I'm claiming Raceroom's superiority based on things that matter the most. The whole debate started with you claiming superficial stuff is fundamental. That's the argument here.
Lets agree to disagree on what's fundamental then. For me the track condition dynamics depending on weather, temperature, humidity, rubbering, dirt, whatever are a fundamental part of racing, as in real life I see these aspects drastically impacting the races all the time. And I think we can all agree that Raceroom compared to essentially all its competition has the least features of this kind implemented. For you it's superficial and you don't need it, which is fine, ultimately it will be the open market which will decide whether it's needed or not.
So you think car handling isn't fundamental? Or are you content with bad car handling, you just want any car handling to be present? What about those features you consider fundamental? Do you need them to be done right? Or are you just content with rain drops on your windshield? Is Forza Horizon a better sim than Raceroom for you then? I mean it has a hell of a dynamic whether system, and you need to adapt to it and all that stuff.
I tested it a year ago and on most tracks time progression was only making FPS drop by 10-15%. On Nords however, FPS dropped more than 50%, and that's what I would call "kills".
I n which conditions are you comparing to AMS2? I opened a thread some time ago about playing the game in power saver mode ie low COU frequency and it was a stutter fest and ooor fps in RRE where I could this fine in AMS2 And that’s at UW 1440p on max settings that’s why at least partially people think RRE is not well optimized Game
It's a set of questions, not an argument, not to mention a strawman argument. You can't answer them because the answers will completely disarm your whole case. You just don't understand what "fundamental" means. Car handling is fundamental for a racing sim and dynamic track conditions aren't. That's not up to a debate, that's a fact. If the car handling model is incorrect, the car handles incorrectly on a clean track, and it handles incorrectly on a rubbered track, and it handles incorrectly on a dirty track, and it handles incorrectly on a damp track, and it handles incorrectly on a wet track, and it handles incorrectly on a cold track, and it handles incorrectly on a warm track, and it also handles incorrectly outside the track. If there's no dynamic track conditions implemented, but the car handling model is correct, the car will at least handle correctly within the static conditions that the sim offers. That's how fundamental car handling is and how unfundamental dynamic track conditions are. The correctness of simulating dynamic track conditions is directly relying on the correctness of the general car handling model - but not the other way around.
I won't entertain answering those questions, because you seem to misunderstand more things than one can be considered fundamental to the racing sim. Me considering track dynamics to be fundamental doesn't mean I don't also consider handling fundamental. Framing my argument as me somehow having to prefer Forza Horizon, because if I care about track I couldn't possibly care about car handling is quite frankly idiotic.
If you drive in 1080p Vsync on @60 Hz every framedrop kills the smoothness as you need steady 60 frames.
Do you have these drops below 60 on most tracks? And only with time progression? Because it's fine for me, and my PC is less powerful than yours.
I'm talking about a normal race in sunny conditions against 20 AI cars. I'm seeing 120+ FPS in R3E there, while the same scenario in AMS2 results in 100 FPS. Obviously both games are perfectly playable with these frame rates in 1080p.