Alpine To Debut In Automobilista 2 With A424 LMDh Hypercar

tr1v1um said:

Why is it bad to rely on LOD-ing? LOD-ing is a perfectly valid technique in 3D environments

Click to expand...

Yes it is a valid technique of course. The problem with rFactor 2 engine approach is the reliance on techniques from mid-2000's that were common practice in rF1, GTR, F1C,... And it is not the LOD itself the problem, but the LOD level used and its related triggers. You can take any modern sim and compare them, rF2 is the only one to still use older LOD technique that consists of making details popping in and out of existence already at "level 2" of LOD model instead of just reducing the polygon counts. It is fine, it works well when alone on track, but that results when not done/handled properly in distacting elements. Once you noticed them, it is hard to ignore.

Just try a little experiment : try to take a picture of the Porsche 693 in AMS2 and then in LMU. Spoiler alert you will have a hard time to get all the winglets on LMU in anything else than a close up shot where the car is not more than 5m away. Now take that LOD levels and see how it is affecting some cars with gearbox details at night in traffic, for instance the Cadillac. Just get in game and follow one, in both LMU and AMS2. You will see entire pieces of the rear diffuser/gearbox section pop in and out of existence in every braking zone as your headlight reflect into it in LMU, not so much in AMS2. I know I am not taking rF2 here, but LMU is the same game engine and only one allowing to really compare car to car easily.

Again the issue in not usage of LODs, but its implementation.

but the brand is a lot more than just its F1 program

Click to expand...

Eeerhm yes??
To me the brand is first and foremost indisputable linked to the iconic 60s classic round 620kg A110 with the 50bhp 1100cc I4 Gordini under the hood. Simply due to this was my very first real world encounter with a real sports car as a kid in til 70ies. Ofcouse the quite more powerful championship winning WRC 1973 180bhp/ 1800cc Gordini variant may be the most iconic Alpine of all times, amongst the utmost iconic rally cars through eras - but the decade earlier A110 version will forever have a special place in my motor racing heart.

Well, apart from this.
I'm so excited.

Mostly for what Reiza goodies 1.6 will bring.

Have to admit I've betrayed AMS2 for the last months, my activity being close to dormant, apart from minor testing /VR performance optimization scrutineering.
However, though modern LMDh is not my normal ball game, I had some real great Le Mans events, being my last 'real' AMS2 racing activity as soon as the track entered the circuit barn.

shadow82 said:

Yes it is a valid technique of course. The problem with rFactor 2 engine approach is the reliance on techniques from mid-2000's that were common practice in rF1, GTR, F1C,... And it is not the LOD itself the problem, but the LOD level used and its related triggers. You can take any modern sim and compare them, rF2 is the only one to still use older LOD technique that consists of making details popping in and out of existence already at "level 2" of LOD model instead of just reducing the polygon counts. It is fine, it works well when alone on track, but that results when not done/handled properly in distacting elements. Once you noticed them, it is hard to ignore.

Just try a little experiment : try to take a picture of the Porsche 693 in AMS2 and then in LMU. Spoiler alert you will have a hard time to get all the winglets on LMU in anything else than a close up shot where the car is not more than 5m away. Now take that LOD levels and see how it is affecting some cars with gearbox details at night in traffic, for instance the Cadillac. Just get in game and follow one, in both LMU and AMS2. You will see entire pieces of the rear diffuser/gearbox section pop in and out of existence in every braking zone as your headlight reflect into it in LMU, not so much in AMS2. I know I am not taking rF2 here, but LMU is the same game engine and only one allowing to really compare car to car easily.

Again the issue in not usage of LODs, but its implementation.

Click to expand...

I have the impression that you don't really know how the LOD-ing even works within rF2/LMU. You can make as many LODs as you want and give them respective complexity and set the fade in and out distances as you like. There is no old or new technique about how this works. The only real limitation to this approach is striking the balance of visual quality versus performance.

And I hope you are aware of the fact that both AMS2 and LMU have different approaches to striking this balance. AMS2 has a vehicle limit of 30 cars while LMU needs to work with double the grid size. LMU is actually alot more scalable in terms of setting up visual quality according to your system specs. You can race it at Ultra settings with 64 visible cars (in rF2 even 94 cars) if your system permits it but you can also go as far as using minimum opponent or player settings (both not the same thing) and even set the detail based on performance in real time. There is alot - and I mean really alot of stuff that you can tweak under the hood going as far as setting LOD levels for stuff in the pit garages.

I have zero idea how you come to the conclusion that one approach is right and one approach is wrong. Once AMS2 supports the grid sizes of LMU and the level of detail like Le Mans in LMU we can restart this conversation but otherwise it's just apples and oranges. And don't forget that the game still needs to run smooth at the start of the race infront of a pitcomplex with all cars bunched up. LMU isn't a screenshot generator - eventhough it looks very good allready - but about getting a smooth racing experience. And in that regard it makes absolutely zero sense to render small winglets that you don't notice more than five meter in front of you.

tr1v1um said:

I have zero idea how you come to the conclusion that one approach is right and one approach is wrong.

Click to expand...

None is correct or wrong.

I said distracting and impossible to unsee once you notice. I am not arguing that the technique is bad, but its implementation is poor at best and definitely dated. But whatever, enough arguing... Rf2/LMU community usual pointless one way communication...

DC WOLF said:

they do. But not all licenses in yet.
If they can get Alpine insted of Ferrari, why not take it.
There are definitelly more IMSA cars in the cue, licensed and in licensing progress.
But they cannot announce b4 they signed it.

Click to expand...

Well, I would certainly expect that along with getting the IMSA license, comes the Ferrari and the Mustang and everything else related to IMSA. I mean, wouldn't that just make sense?

Defender said:

Well, I would certainly expect that along with getting the IMSA license, comes the Ferrari and the Mustang and everything else related to IMSA. I mean, wouldn't that just make sense?

Click to expand...

If it works like the WEC deal that MSG has that nope.

Mazda Cup for when?

@tr1v1um @Defender
Most racing championship licenses do not come with its "content". You only license stuff like the name, logos, numberplates etc. with it. You will nearly always have to license cars and tracks seperately (even tho the championship might help you aquire those as in giving contacts, trying to persuade the track to sign a license deal etc.).

This is completely different to NBA for example where the championship license also includes the teams.