Graphics update iracing

[HAMALO]

Let start with the game play thats just awesome. But one thing thats anoying is the every month payment and especialy buying new cars and track.
So be said now about the graphics, this is just one ugly graphics gameplay, its just old.
The one is satisfy with it but there are enough who isnt so ti iracing.
We all pay a lot of money for this game to play, at least upgrade the game with engine 4 and directx 12 so its worth it to pay and play this game from our fanatics racers eye view.
What the reason may be, it just need to be upgraden.

 

[HAMALO]

It would be great if they updated the graphics. Anyone who pays for iRacing probably can afford a high end gaming rig to handle great graphics.

Saying iRacing graphics are the best? Not in the eyes of most I think but everyone can opine.

Thats the problem why a lot of them are satisfy because they cant afford a high rig gaming hardwares. Thats why they attacking me, but i have an Titan RTX thats why i want awesome graphics. Thx foir your understanding.

 

[RCHeliguy]

It's OK to want things. It's another to expect others to feel the same way.

Let's look at this from iRacing's standpoint.

There are features, like their new crash model, ever evolving tire model, new content, etc that brings value to their entire customer base.

From a business perspective, should they spend effort on something that has value to only 0.001 % of their audience?

 

[F_B]

I realy dont understand u people. Compare it to Call of Duty so they need to stay past with graphics damn look at the COD Modern warfare open your eyes and see what RTX is omg. Its amazing how they can make graphics so beautiful and you are satisfy with these ugly from 1900 graphics @ iracing lol

How old are you? 5?

 

[RCHeliguy]

It just might be worth mentioning that the Call of Duty franchise has sold over 250 million copies and has made $15 Billion dollars. Video games are projected to pass professional sports in terms of income in 2020.

By comparison iRacing has about 40-60K active users today depending on your source. iRacing claimed 50K users by 2013, but I "believe" that counted dormant accounts.

You can try to do the math on this, but you will have to make lots of assumptions.

Let's assume that the average iRacing member spends $250 per year which I think is generous since many people say they spend about twice that the first year and then don't buy very much after that.

lets assume COD costs about $40 a copy. Once again an assumption since it starts at $59.99 on release and then drops in price. You can pick up the original for about 19.99 now.

So lots of assumptions. 50,000 * 250/40 = 312,000 equivalent copies of COD.

Let's just assume that iRacing has had 50K members each year for the last decade and all that time each person spent $250 per year which is REALLY generous.

That would bring iRacing up to the equivalent of 3 million copies of COD vs 250 million.

iRacing would still be working with a little more than 1/1000th the budget of Call of Duty.

My guess is that it is more like 1/2000th, but that is just a guess. My point is that even being very generous about iRacing's income, they do not have anywhere near the resources that a large AAA game production house has.

 

[Kurupt CDN]

Thats why they attacking me

There is a big difference between disagreeing with ones opinion and attacking

Here is a list of all the games that support Ray tracing, so you can get the most out of your Titan RTX while waiting for iracing to update the graphics.

Pretty sure ACC supports it too

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.digitaltrends.com/computing/games-support-nvidia-ray-tracing/?amp

 

[RCHeliguy]

I'm curious about the initial premise of having a $2500 video card and being upset by the subscription fee and cost for content along with the comparison of a iRacing to COD.

First of all the content is a one time charge. So at some point most people have just about everything they need for the year and the yearly subscription is not that much.

On the other hand that $2500 video card will likely lose half of its value within 2 years when a 3080Ti for $1200 outperforms it. So that card is basically depreciating $600 a year.

I just got an SC2 Pro and have a PSE GT3 wheel arriving this week. The two of those combined are about $2500, but will last me a very long time and will probably hold their value better over the next few years.

However I just spent $114 for the 8 tracks I needed to finish up the 488GT3 series for 4th quarter. Right now I'm spending about 45min to 1 hr each day training on the tracks using VRS which I spent another $100 for the year's subscription. I'm still on a serious learning curve so I'm only doing an occasional race here and there. I need to learn skills there too, but I need to be faster around the track so I can then focus on the other players.

So I will get my money out of those tracks. Think about 7 hours a week, 1 track per week for 3 months. This season those tracks are costing me about $2 per sim hour this season and forever more I will have access to them. That's a pretty good rate of return and a HELL of a lot better than the money I've sunk into my rig. It will take me many years to get my money out of that equipment.

 

[maelstrom]

My point is that even being very generous about iRacing's income, they do not have anywhere near the resources that a large AAA game production house has.

But much more than a small team like Kunos have and they seem to have been able to develop (arguably, and I'm sure several here will) a better tyre model, physics and graphics - albeit only for GT3 cars on a fairly limited number of tracks. You can say that there are still a number of issues to be resolved with ACC but they are releasing regular, significant updates and haven't had the benefit of years of potential development that iRacing has had, nor the regular guaranteed income. It does give the impression that the iRacing devs have been resting on their laurels to a certain extent.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Good points. I suspect that iRacing's devs and IT personel in general have to put a lot of time into keeping the servers running smoothly and optimizing all the match making etc which is development that you would never see. To date, I don't think any other racing sim company has had to deal with keeping anywhere near that number of servers running smoothly. They also have to deal with disputes between drivers over incidents and have other overhead.

I can't pretend to have a clue how their resources are budgeted, but one thing they will not be able to do is clean sheet the whole thing and start over like Kunos did with ACC. There is more effort to iterate a product over the years maintaining compatibility and reliability than there is to occasionally cut bait and start over with completely new tools and have a product that is unreliable and has serious bugs for half a year to 9 months.

iRacing has to keep a reliable product going all the time, so their changes have to be done more carefully, and be tested more thoroughly before they can be released.

Once again I don't know all the costs involved, but this isn't a straight apples to apples comparison either.

You have to admit that Kunos did release an unfinished product and let their users beta test the product for them even after there pre-release period was over. I didn't get a copy of ACC until is was officially released and it still had major issues. Also when in an interview one of their head people says that if you want to do VR your need a 2080Ti, that is saying they didn't spend any time to optimize the graphics. It has improved since then, but that is a pretty crappy attitude.

 

[tlsmikey]

Add me to the list of folks that think iRacing has the best overall graphics package out there. I don't know what to tell you if you think ACC is better. ACC has terrible ghosting, blurry visuals (try reading the dash) and VR that is the worst experience in all of simracing. iRacing has fantastic performance in triple screen, single screen and VR. They implemented SMS and SPS to dramatically increase performance which no other title has done.

iRacing is not for everyone but if you don't like the graphics, I think simracing may not be for you. The forza titles and grid stuff may have the visuals you want, but it isn't what most of the simracing community wants.

 

[maelstrom]

Add me to the list of folks that think iRacing has the best overall graphics package out there. I don't know what to tell you if you think ACC is better. ACC has terrible ghosting, blurry visuals (try reading the dash) and VR that is the worst experience in all of simracing.

I really don't want to get into an argument about which sim is better - they both have their advantages and disadvantages. However, the blurry graphics don't affect most people. There are numerous videos of live races on YT with pin-sharp graphics and that's been my experience. I see every detail clearly on the dash displays. I've never seen ghosting during a race, only occasionally during playback. There's a lot to like about iRacing but the graphics, whilst good for a graphics engine of its age, just don't compare to ACC in my opinion. I don't use VR or triples so can't comment on those. We'll have to agree to disagree!

 

[RCHeliguy]

Since I only play in VR, iRacing wins the graphics war hands down in terms of being very usable at up to 120 fps. I couldn't comment on how it looks on a monitor. Never tried that.

I'm also not suggesting that ACC looks bad in VR. It's just a pig in terms of hardware required to run it well in VR.

 

[maelstrom]

I couldn't comment on how it looks on a monitor. Never tried that.

I'd put money on the fact that the overwhelming majority of iRacing users race with a monitor, so for most people that would be the point of reference.

 

[RCHeliguy]

On my iRacing Discord group pretty much everyone has VR, most are use a Rift or Rift S, but I'm not remotely suggesting VR is the norm. However, it is a rapidly growing segment that will only become more important as time goes on.

 

[maelstrom]

On my iRacing Discord group pretty much everyone has VR

Without knowing how many are in your group, there's no way to determine how representative of iRacing usage that is.

 

[dan piontek]

You know,
I can see/agree the argument on both sides. Yes I agree that I want the best engine but at the same time when using VR i also want the best visuals available. when it comes down to either one or the other............ i would have to say I would prefer performance over eye candy I suppose. But on the other hand I agree when it comes the financial side of it. YES we pay HELLA money to play this sim every month/year with that being said I think we should have the best of both worlds. Have you ever looked at how many Iracing users their are? If you take that figure and do some math to it I think we have paid for the best of both worlds 10 fold. Even if yo were to take that figure and chop it in half and do the math we have a strong argument. Yes, it costs a lot of money to scan tracks, use car names yadda yadda yadda but on the same token that is all part of making a racing sim with quality and when you look at it in another shed of light it is free advertising for the auto makers and the track owners as well so take it at face value there. I believe we can ALL agree when I say "we have paid our dues". some of the people racing have paid more than others when it comes to their rigs BUT we ALL have paid the same when it comes to our Iracing memberships. We SHOULD have the very best when it comes down to the topics shared here. the best graphics and the best physics for the car handling. That is why we are all using Iracing and it is what we all expect when you/we buy the top of the line anything for that matter. weather it be a video game, clothing, house, tools, or a car/truck for Gods sake. I believe they are doing what they can but I also believe they could do it a little faster. I don't know much about computer programing as I am just a stupid blue collar worker and leave it all to the people that do that sort of thing so with that being said, I don't know how much work it takes to revamp an entire sim program but with the money they make or have made they should have the people that can do the job quickly,efficiently, and correctly. All we can do is wait, give suggestions, and hope they have a sympathetic ear to our cries. I didn't mean to "step on anyone's toes" here or beat up on anyone's comments. I just wanted to shed my thoughts on the subject.
Cheers,
Soda Can Dan

 

[mozzie]

You know,
I can see/agree... Cut quote.

You can't have nice shiny Red Dead Redemption 2 graphics and expect your PC to run a multiplayer 60 car field at Le Mans at 144 FPS, (or 90/120 FPS in VR).
I am assuming now, but all these people complaining about how the graphics aren't pretty enough would be the same people who would complain because their PC is only able to push 20 FPS with a 40 car multiplayer field. You can have one or the other unfortunately, you cannot have both with the commercially available hardware we have at the moment.

Personally, I think iRacing looks the best in VR compared to all other titles. It has the sharpest, cleanest image and since they have introduced HDR the lighting effects are second to none. This is all in my own opinion though. Obviously there will be people with differing opinions... such is life.