Somehow it's relatively bright comparing to other tracks, like 10% of pp_filter_brightness over. And tarmac even at lowered brightness is blinding white to the point of discomfort.
It's quite a bit expensive esp. for VR folks with not so much headroom for bells and whistles.If you want 3D grass, use CSP/SOL's procedural grass. Lilski intentionally does it that way now to save modding time.
I don't have to do that for any other tracks, why this one?On page 16 of sol config you can set the brightness individual for each track.
Because it's setup how John and I want it. End of story.I don't have to do that for any other tracks, why this one?
Feedback well received I see.Because it's setup how John and I want it. End of story.
If there was 4 or 5+ people complaining about it then I might consider it. But 1 out of almost 3000 doesn't concern me. It looks fine on all 3 of my machines and everyone who tested it. So as far as I am concerned it's fine.Feedback well received I see.
Thanks for that.On page 16 of sol config you can set the brightness individual for each track.
Thanks for that.
...
So you like it at 70?
Sorry to report that the new version is still giving me a race cancelled message.
Edit: in my case disabling BLM lights does the trick.
I agree that trying to "please everyone" is futile, but at least there should be some generally accepted uniformity across tracks, especially newly developed.Yes, 70 is ok for me.
For track builders it is impossible to please everyone. The quality of the things you see on your monitor depends on many things (Monitor settings, used filter, weather etc.
CSP, SOL, different filters and all the million settings that come with them... are not enforced on anyone, specially on content creators. A big reason Assetto Corsa will never have a "de-facto" standard. As you said so yourself, SOL tries to make it all uniform with built in configurations for tracks with every release.I agree that trying to "please everyone" is futile, but at least there should be some generally accepted uniformity across tracks, especially newly developed.
I understand that problem compounds by different filters people could use, but given profiled monitor and what is considered de-facto standard for CSP/SOL, SOL_Extra PP filter, why the brightness is so off.
Is that SOL problem and modders just use different target when optimizing tracks?
By no means complaining, just trying to understand and learn from it.
At least there is some solution and it works brilliantly (until next SOL release wipes out my changes), but I almost discarded this wonderful track recreation after launching it first time, so washed out and painfully bright tarmac looked.
Is that what it's calibrated to, vanilla AC. So why Grass FX is needed?You want something that looks perfectly calibrated in every way? You'll need to delete all your mods and use the game as its shipped I'm afraid, lol.
You got your answer a few posts back, but again and not as bluntly: we achieved a look that we were happy with, using SOL and without.Is that what it's calibrated to, vanilla AC. So why Grass FX is needed?
Not sure if I worded my question properly, but what is that standard that you use for track "calibration"?
Is it an unreasonable ask?