Ok Guys, here is the Deal (rFactor 2)

[davidan]

Ok guys here is the deal ... I have intentionally been pretty quiet on rFactor 2 and the debate/discussion in the forums here and other places, until I could do some tests and be as objective as possible. To cut to the chase, if you want the punch line only ...

I have concluded there is nothing wrong with the sim, it simply is designed for modern graphics cards, and PC's running something pretty current, at minimum in the video card department, as well as a multi-core modern processor (last couple of years) as well as 4GB of RAM at minimum. I have done a good amount of testing on a box originally built for rFactor (before scenario) and a box upgraded for rFactor 2 (after scenario), and will share my results.

However, I think David summed it up best with this post ...

Posted by David Kessler

I really don't think rF2 is going to see any major performance improvements over the current beta. Anything more than 10% would really surprise me. When rF1 released in 2005, Nvidia's latest was the 6xxx series GPU. How many 6xxx series cards (teamed with a 6 - 7 year old CPU) can get 60+ FPS with rF1 graphics on high? A sim like rF2 has to push the limit of current hardware or it will feel dated in just a couple years (let alone 7)...

Ok, here is the situation in more depth.
-----

When I first downloaded the BETA, I was getting 20 FPS , max of 30, with pretty much everything on the very lowest, minimal settings. The box I was testing it on is my rFactor machine that runs original rFactor very well in v-Sync at a solid 60FPS and much higher with v-Sync disabled, but I prefer v-Sync for the smoothness. That box is running the following

AMD athlon II X250 Dual Core Proc (3.0 GHZ per processor per core), - not the most current processor, but decent and only a couple years removed from new. This processor was never bleeding edge, always a value category processor for price/performance bang for buck.

Also running 4GB of RAM with Win7 x64

Also running originally an ATI Radeon HD3850 Video Card

note in this configuration this sim would run rFactor with Enduracers and high/full settings at solid 60FPS, vsync
note this configuration would only run rFactor 2 at 20-25 (very max 30) FPS with vsync and was choppy and generally not suitable experience for online racing

-----

I then made 2 minor upgrades to the computer, costing a total of about $240.00

I bought 4 more GB of RAM to take it to 8
I also purchased a new AMD/ATI Radeon HD6870 video card. This video card is by no means the best on the market, but it's considered the best value card for the money (in the less than $200 range). I got it for about $160.00

With these upgrades it runs the following

Original rFactor on everything maxed out, high as it can go - solid 60FPS vsyc (as expected)
rFactor 2 with most settings on high or full, and both 2X or 4x AA / Filtering - in vSync, very solid 60FPS, will ocassionally dip down into mid 50's on pit road ...

So, basically ... a few more things

1. The sim is BETA, remember it's not complete, we will see improvements and some I am sure will be performance related

2. The sim is not broken (at least from my observations and objective testing in 2 scenarios as described). In fact with the newer configuration it looks, sounds, drives gorgeous, it's going to rock as it further evolves and I am very confident it will have a long life in sim racing as well as here at CMS.

3. it's unrealistic to expect a modern game of any kind to run at same or equal performance to a machine/game/sim combination built in 2005. Game developers and this is no exception have always pushed the envelope on software/hardware performance.

4. Long story short, to really enjoy rFactor 2, you need to think about your next PC or upgrades. You will be glad for this later, ... why you ask? Go back and read David's quote in this post, it's designed to take advantage of new and next gen hardware and last many years into the future, the same as the original rFactor has ...


PS, if you are waiting to buy rFactor 2 because you think it's crap and doesnt work, don't. But do realize you need a modern machine to run it, and here is an excellent link to a great list of modern hardware you can pick from in several different price points, it's a great tool.

http://www.maximumpc.com/best-of-the-best


Cya on the track -- we will be hosting rFactor 2 races @ CMS in the near future, and see this forum for info on our test server that is already up for members.


DA

[JETninja]

I built my Racing PC last year in anticipation of RF2.

Intel I5-760 Quad Core
8GB DDR3
nVidia GTX460 1GB
Asus P33 Chipset MB
Asus 24" 1080P Monitor

Of course it ran RF1 great all year in my various leagues. I have no idea what my FPS is in RF2, but it runs great, super smooth and no stutters or anything so far. I have most settings at Full (Opponents at Med cause who cares? Ha Ha)

PC is still running at stock speeds, I have tons of head room if I ever feel the need to overclock. (like my last PC)

A good place to learn about building reasonable priced PC is the build articles at Anandtech.com, and PCPerspective is another great site to learn about gear and how they rate for price and performance vs others.

[davidan]

Anandtech.com is definitely a great site for PC and build stuff for sure.

[Brad_W]

While I agree with most of what you said there are still issues with the game that need to be resolved. I for one can not drive it because of the force feedback issues with the G25. I'm not going to kill my wheel to drive a beta. I'm sure that this will get resolved before it goes gold. I hope that there is no intention of making a switch to rF2 until it is at a full release state.

I have stated that I like the game and think it has great potiental it just needs a considerable amount of work to get it to that point. My system is ready for the game, they just need to get it polished.

[Marcel Penzkofer]

Even though I am a very crtitic person about rF2, I agree with most of your points. Except the hardware one. Because it is just wrong, to NOT compare rF2s performance to that of F1.

Reason? Well, it isn't like you compare a Playstation 1 to a Playstation 3 game. There is no new-gen-graphics in rF2, it isn't even different to rF1. It is STILL GMotor 2.0 from rF1. So it HAS to work with the same performance when you turn off the HDR effects (interestingly rF2 runs smoother with HDR turned on than off). In fact, the only thing they changed about the engine is that hey removed support for DX7 and DX8. Doesn't mean there are going to be any DX10 or 11 features in the future as Gjion from ISI clearly stated the engine would never be changed on rF2.

In short: The same engine has to run at the same performance in two different games. Let's compare GMotor games on FPS-rates I have... everything on maximum Details for all games, 1920x1200@60Hz@32Bit. rF1 (300-400 FPS). RACE (250-300 FPS), RACE 07 (280-310 FPS), GTR2 (190-200 FPS). Now rF2 without the "new effects" (40-70 FPS). That is just a big big laugh.
Andre for example has a 7 year old PC with an Intel Core²Duo E2160. rF2 is running with more FPS on his machine than on some Core i7-2600K-16GB-SLI/Crossfire monster configs. It is running better on my Core²Duo E8600 aswell. So it has nothing to do with the hardware you got. Search the forums about it. You'll see, the better your pc is, the worse it might work with rF2...

I expressed myself a lot during the past weeks but I only can repeat. Stop talking about "It's still a Beta." Because it isn't. The base for rF2 is rF1. And that base worked for six years now. Somehow they ruined their own base. ISI was never good with their stock content so I give them the point for their community might be able to pull out more of rF2 in the future but maybe the base rF2 Final isn't worth modding at all.

One final thing I want to add is the fact, that the ForceFeedback is just rubish, I am sorry, but the Controller.ini shows their FFB model is not more definitive than before like they say, NO it is simpler, includes less lines and is more dumb to configure. And even, after several hours of trying, you get it half way right, it still feels numb. I know my opinion doesn't count much but if they don't change something significantly, no league will see me driving rF2 ever. I prefer staying at rF1 at the moment.

Don't get me wrong, I too hope for a great rF2 sim because I WANT IT GODDAMNIT LIKE YOU DO =). But there is very very few hope at the moment.

[David Kessler]

Just this morning I replaced my 9600GT card with a GTX 560 Ti. My results track with David's. I was at 25 to 30 fps on the first straight at Monaco with the old card and settings cranked all the way down. With the new one, I haven't seen it drop below 60 (vsync on). I haven't completely maxed the detail yet (ran out of time) but I'm pretty confident this set up can take it. Note that this is on a core i5 2500K at 3.6 GHz with 8 GB RAM. So rF2, as it stands now, needs a good box, but not a "god box" to run well. Upper mid range current components, or high end previous generation components should give you a pretty good experience.

Note that GPU may prove more important than CPU in rF2. The gmotor engine may be largely unchanged from rF1, but that is not true of the shader code. ISI crammed a lot more capability in there, and old GPUs just don't have enough shader units to keep up. Such is the way of modern games/sims. Gameplay/physics may be what keeps people interested in the long run, but it's flashy graphics that move copies in the first year.

[Troy Dalton]

...So rF2, as it stands now, needs a good box, but not a "god box" to run well. Upper mid range current components, or high end previous generation components should give you a pretty good experience.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I have a good box and it not only looks terrible, but it runs like hell. In it's current state and without a significant monetary investment on my part, I cannot participate in any league sponsored rF2 events and that's very disappointing.

...Gameplay/physics may be what keeps people interested in the long run, but it's flashy graphics that move copies in the first year.

If that really is the case, then I fear a significant portion of rF fans will not embrace rF2. I can only speak for myself, but "function before form" is my motto and in my opinion, rF2 doesn't even deliver in the "Flashy" graphics department.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One aspect of rF2 that I find interesting, is that the beta, in it's current state, appears to be creating a division between the Have's and the Have Not's. Those who can afford to go out and upgrade their machines to support it, love it. Those that can't, hate it. So, ISI has unintentionally drawn a line in the sand between the rich and the poor. Now, considering how many core rF fans wailed about the cost of iRacing, I can't imagine those same people will be too eager to drop an additional $300-$500 on a rig, just so that they can run a "GAME." Which I might add, doesn't appear to be that much better than it's predecessor.

The folks over at iRacing must be ecstatic right now! Think about it, for many core rF fans, iRacing is actually the cheaper option than rF2!

Honestly, if ISI had delivered a beta that actually worked to the minimum specs, no one would be complaining.

[baristabrian]

There is one sliver of hope for some of us ATI GPU owners. In the ISI problem report threads there are about 3 very full threads of complaints specificly regarding the FPS/stuttering issues. Of these the great majority are from ATI GPU owners, some older units and some more current than mine. ISI has acknowledged there is an issue between rF2 and some ATI cards and are working on it. THis means that it is very likely that either ISI will tweek the code to make it more ATI friendly, or they will lean on AMD to tweek their drivers to make it more ATI friendly. Either way it gives a sliver of hope for those of us running ATI cards who are having major issues.

One thing I find a bit odd is that even when my FPS are showing in the 115 range I still see a lot of "chopyness" making it virtualy impossible to drive. Unless Im reading it wrong my specs are quite a bit above their recomended range, and WAY above their minimum range.