Why does AMS have fewer jaggies than rF2?

[Marc Collins]

AMS should look worse, since it's based on rF1...

Do these lines in the PLAYER file, not found in rF2, make the difference?:

Mipmap Adjust Mode="1" // 0 = Disabled, 1 = Clamp, 2 = Bias
Mipmap Bias="-0.25000"

If not, what explains fewer jaggies and better in-motion look when all video card settings, resolution, etc., are identical?

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

A new piece of info that could be useful. I noticed that some of the same texture edge issues I get in the front view of rF2 show up in the rear view mirror of AMS. We know there is less processing happening in the mirror (in both rF2 and AMS), so does anyone know exactly what is not being done in the mirror?

I bet it's just the lower resolution of the mirrors that enhances this effect, other than that the mirror is basically the same rendering as the front view, minus a couple of objects. Just needs a higher AA level to compensate for it (the higher the resolution, the less AA is always needed).

 

[Marc Collins]

I bet it's just the lower resolution of the mirrors that enhances this effect, other than that the mirror is basically the same rendering as the front view, minus a couple of objects. Just needs a higher AA level to compensate for it (the higher the resolution, the less AA is always needed).

That doesn't explain how the low res mirror in AMS and the high-res front view in rF2 have the same picture quality issues. If both mirrors had issues and both front views did not... But we are talking about AMS front view 10/10; rF2 front view 6 or 7/10; AMS mirror 6 or 7/10 and rF2 mirror 5/10. There is less difference between the rF2 front view and mirror than AMS.

 

[Gijs van Elderen]

If not, what explains fewer jaggies and better in-motion look when all video card settings, resolution, etc., are identical?

What are your video card settings?
Why are they identical to AMS?

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

That doesn't explain how the low res mirror in AMS and the high-res front view in rF2 have the same picture quality issues. If both mirrors had issues and both front views did not... But we are talking about AMS front view 10/10; rF2 front view 6 or 7/10; AMS mirror 6 or 7/10 and rF2 mirror 5/10. There is less difference between the rF2 front view and mirror than AMS.

The latest Mores update contains the following line, which might give a clue to these issues:

Green Defender Barrier; Fresnel Specular smoothed out to avoid edgy/glitchy speculars

I still think resolution is the factor that is causing mirrors to look better or worse. Mirror resolution in gMotor depends on the mod, in rF2 most mods use 2K (2048x128) texture (you can check this from MIRROR.BMP which is provided with every mod). Maybe AMS mods are using different values.

 

[Marc Collins]

What are your video card settings?
Why are they identical to AMS?

What I mean is that I am using the same resolution, same full super sampling, same AFx16, etc., for both games. Unfortunately, rF2 doesn't like card-based AA (causes issues with transparency and more), so I use Level 7.

 

[Marc Collins]

The latest Mores update contains the following line, which might give a clue to these issues:

I still think resolution is the factor that is causing mirrors to look better or worse. Mirror resolution in gMotor depends on the mod, in rF2 most mods use 2K (2048x128) texture (you can check this from MIRROR.BMP which is provided with every mod). Maybe AMS mods are using different values.

Yes, I noticed that with great interest and I see none of the annoying problems at the new Mores (well, maybe just one tiny problem at the two ends of the main straight--the metal grill work). This is incredibly bad news if it means every track has to be painstakingly updated to get proper/improved picture quality while in motion. That will take years and/or never happen for most tracks. I was/am hoping a global change could resolve this.