1
rFactor 2 General / Re: rF2 Headlights Controls utility
« on: September 18, 2019, 08:13:02 am »
Can this be somehow setup so it runs automatically with rf2 or do you have to always run it individually before you run rf2?
Sundays - https://vrc.createaforum.com/series-sign-ups/vrc-2022-spring-sunday-gte-series-sign-up/
Off-track communication is mostly handeled through Discord group and https://virtualracingchampionship.com/ !

|
|
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
1
rFactor 2 General / Re: rF2 Headlights Controls utility« on: September 18, 2019, 08:13:02 am »
Can this be somehow setup so it runs automatically with rf2 or do you have to always run it individually before you run rf2?
2
VRC Series' sign ups / Re: VRC GT3 2019 Fall Series Sign Up« on: September 08, 2019, 08:13:12 pm »
I will take the Audi R8 (Michal Kominek)
3
VRC Series' sign ups / Re: VRC GT3 2019 Fall Series Sign Up« on: August 08, 2019, 05:27:03 pm »
Hey Boys!
It's been a couple of weeks hasnt it. I am playing with the thought of getting back to this. I could use some reminders and also Team Speak, anybody willing to help?Let's sign me up Michal Kominek - Car TBA 4
rFactor 2 General / Re: A look behind the scenes of rFactor 2 car development« on: July 30, 2017, 08:37:50 am »
Borda is a great guy, but gosh is he bad at explaining. Good luck understanding everything he says
I tried, i failed.
5
Project cars 2 / Re: Project Cars 2« on: July 15, 2017, 10:11:37 am »
Admins are OT, admins are OT!
![]() Are we still going with EGT? If yes id pick Mills, but i gotta give a thought as to which layout
6
Project cars 2 / Re: Project Cars 2« on: July 14, 2017, 06:37:49 pm »I agree with a lot of what you say Mikee, I am quite a skeptic. SMS are a commercial beast and are interested in selling on mass. So the game will look amazing, have lots of fluff and fancy stuff, but I doubt they will get the physics right for most cars. But does this really matter? When I say "realistic" i dont mean "like in real life". Its sorta complicated to explain, but i presonally dont care if the car is one sec slower or faster on the same track. There are far too many factors affecting these things to compare anyway. I want to see logical physics and FFB that gives you the subtle balance signals. When i drive my real life car, i can feel the balance in my body, and somehow ISI managed to create a FFB where I can feel the same feeling just thru my hands. Its soo well made. Also - you cannot have realistic high end race cars in a consumer grade sims.. its not possible... there is a reason why there are tens or hundrets of people working on that car all of the time, on next tracks setups, simulating races, tire degradation, fuel consumption, parts wear, liquid expansion, gas expansion etc etc. So.. give me cars that handle logically and connect it to me thru the FFB so i can feel it logically... the only sims that have ever come close to this are all isiMotor based for me, AC is really ****, pCars are really ****, iRacing is really ****. It depends how deep you dig, if you are not fussed that much, AC might be pretty good.. I personally call AC "Track day simulator" where rF2 is "the best racing simulator", but dont mistake best with ultimate. I dont need laser scanned tracks either, i dont care about that.. The problem is that a lot of "not laser scanned" third party tracks are just badly made, beacuse the cambers and elevation changes are so off it would not even pass FIA standards. So i dont care if its laser scanned or even all that accurate, as long as its make sence and those tracks are challenging in the same way they should be. My personal favourite tracks are Mills, Loch Drummond and Toban, and they all happen to be fantasy tracks. That does mean i hate real life tracks (i do with some) but "Real life" accuracy has very little importance I am always astonished with the amazing track accuracy in AC, trully unbelievable, but you get to drive on those tracks in crap handling cars.. I really enjoyed our race on RedBull ring here in the series, because its an AC rip (i dont like that fact - but it assures that track is trully well made) and f.e. in turn 3 on red bull ring, without laser scanning its extremely hard to make the road shape right so that it isnt idiotically steppy yet challening in the right way. 7
Project cars 2 / Re: Project Cars 2« on: July 13, 2017, 03:15:14 pm »
Its most likely going to have very similar physics as 1. You gotta realize that more complex physics you have, more complicated it is to make content for it.
In rF2 offic cars come out every 3-6months, being quite extensively tested for the last few months of its developement. In AC or pCars, they somehow come out with 10 cars a month even cars that in real life have extremly complicated electronic differentials, dynamic dampers, torque convertors, brake systems, stability controls etc. It simply screams how fudged the physics are. pCars 1 also hyped people before it came out only to disappoint everyone, pCars 2 is just history repeating itself... Plus - pCars is going to have all sorts of racing, dirt, rally, ovals, circuits, steet cars, all over the place. That shows me even more how fudged it will be because you might aswell have two completely differend tyre models for lose surfaces. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. I wish even rF2 had more realistic physics in many places, simply no other sim comes close. There are some things in AMS physics that are better, but overaly na-ah 8
VRC Series' sign ups / Re: Summer mini-series Q3/2017- GP3 - Entry list« on: July 01, 2017, 08:01:39 am »
Sure im in
9
VRC rf2 fun runs / Re: VRC Fun Run BTCC at Mores« on: June 24, 2017, 02:30:58 pm »
Ill pass on this one too, I never enjoyed Mores for more than like 20 mins, it than becomes quite painful on my braking foot.
10
General Discussion / Re: Driving Views and Simracing« on: June 07, 2017, 06:36:12 am »
I always try for as authentic as i can. So cockpit view with as little info on the screen as i can... Plus virtual mirrors because i cant see my mirrors on single screen. If I could, i wouldnt use the virtual ones
11
rFactor 2 General / Re: URD content« on: May 31, 2017, 08:34:11 pm »
I am not saying that about the Mod
i am saying that about the whole real life series
12
rFactor 2 General / Re: URD content« on: May 31, 2017, 06:41:24 pm »im not a big fan of T5 (DTM). its got the wrong balance of traction to weight to power Sorry for being unclear, i meant for me to enjoy it, its got too much grip for the engine power 13
rFactor 2 General / Re: URD content« on: May 30, 2017, 08:29:49 pm »
im not a big fan of T5 (DTM). its got the wrong balance of traction to weight to power
14
rFactor 2 General / Re: rF2 - Install on SSD or HDD?« on: May 12, 2017, 05:53:39 pm »
Ive seem quite a lot of people testing this, nobody observed any percievable difference, it seems that the main difference in loading is actually CPU, because majority of the loading screen is initiating shaders, compiling physics code and **** like that.
15
rFactor 2 General / Re: Monitor Cable - DisplayPort or HDMI or DVI?« on: May 12, 2017, 05:52:40 pm »
It depends on your monitor, majority of monitors can only do 59 or 60Hz, if yours can do, than you need to worry about the cable, Displayport (DP) and HDMI are not locked to any frequency, its about the maximum data bandwith these cables are able to put thru. So the frequency limitation is stated against a specific resolution... Simply said, for example this and that cable can only put thru 60Hz at 4K, but 120Hz at 1080p. That said, there are many versions of DP and HDMIs (HDMI 1.0, 1.1. ,1.6, 2.0, 2.1) blah blah.. and each iteration can put thru higher data bandwith.. so.. that
That said, DVI is by far the slowest (has the lowest data bandwith) out of the three no matter the version.
Pages: [1] 2
|
|