GTRevival: Straight4 Studios Reveals Early Gameplay Video

Guys can we stop with my GPU/CPU's bigger than yours nonsense. Why is it that if someone is happy with what they have others have to comment negatively on their choice.
Sometimes it seems that I'm watching the school playground.

Odd turn for the conversation.

Fact of the matter is most people aren't using the latest and greatest, and if your game only looks great on a tiny percentage of hardware then that should be considered something of a failure, not a feature. Throw in the fact that many users are looking for a balance between fps and eye candy and the issue gets worse.

Hey, it looks crap on most systems but you can fix it with a few thousand dollars isn't exactly enticing.

Be interesting to see if the games that make use of the unreal engine ever align with the marketing and hype of the unreal engine.

Metla said:

Odd turn for the conversation.

Fact of the matter is most people aren't using the latest and greatest, and if your game only looks great on a tiny percentage of hardware then that should be considered something of a failure, not a feature. Throw in the fact that many users are looking for a balance between fps and eye candy and the issue gets worse.

Hey, it looks crap on most systems but you can fix it with a few thousand dollars isn't exactly enticing.

Be interesting to see if the games that make use of the unreal engine ever align with the marketing and hype of the unreal engine.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's a weird form of futureproofing, to be honest, I know my card could do with an upgrade and that will take place, but only when what I want to play looks like crap, currently it runs hot on Medieval Dynasty with graphics on high... though I think that game still needs fully optimising.
The last time I spent out a fortune to play a game I got stung by the hype, yeah I bought a new PS4 and Gran Turismo 7 (the PS5 was sold out for months) only to find it wasn't all I'd led myself to believe, but that's by the by...
The use of a physics engine and a graphics engine is a new thing to me and I'm hoping for the best (it runs on my current machine) but planning for the worst (it gets cancelled) both scenarios cost me nothing, it's only when the in between scenario (I have to upgrade) strikes that it'll cost me anything.
So, I'm happy

Pete Conway said:

Not at all, the 1070 is better than the 1050 and is serves me for what I need... currently!

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, the gap between a 1050 and a 1070 is substantial. Until last year I used a 1070 with a more than 10 years old i7 2600k. Could play ACC in VR. I could play Cyberpunk 2077. And, as I worked far from home I used to play with a GTX 1060 mobile graphic card, which can run modern games with only some graphic adjustments. Most PC players even don't own a GC as powerful as a 1070. I would say that a 1070 is the minimim for simracing to play in solid conditions. PC elitism...

1070 is a great card, it stands out as a bit of a performance powerhouse for its time (and in a completely different performance league then the 1050, game changing even, I'm still using one in one of my computers and its a trooper) and sits quite close performance wise to the 3060 card which due to its price point has been a very popular option for builds over the last few years

To dismiss the performance levels of the 1070 and by association the performance levels of all current generation cards with similar performance is just delusional and arrogant, especially when you consider how many of these cards are in use right now, and doing just fine running superior titles.

Build better games., the hardware is fine, The customers aren't at fault for not constantly investing to make up for developers (or engine, looking at you UE) shortfalls.

Does my head in that I fire AMS2 which looks so damn good and I'm getting 400 to 700 fps and then I fire up iRacing which looks like a dogs breakfast that was vomited up twice and its sitting at 120fps.

It's an instant pass when I see Ian Bell.

XRRoy said:

It's an instant pass when I see Ian Bell.

Click to expand...

Wow, if you see him around the corner, it's already too late, something has been taken from you, without you noticing anything. It may be your car, your house, your life partner, even your dog's food, whatever, you're just lost! Better to close your eyes, it can only get worse and you don't want to see what's coming!

EDIT : don't worry about your Project Cars copies though, there's no risk, he won't take them away from you...

roadyroad said:

Wow, if you see him around the corner, it's already too late, something has been taken from you, without you noticing anything. It may be your car, your house, your life partner, even your dog's food, whatever, you're just lost! Better to close your eyes, it can only get worse and you don't want to see what's coming!

EDIT : don't worry about your Project Cars copies though, there's no risk, he won't take them away from you...

Click to expand...

Careful what statements you cast away into the internet, they have a way of always being there.... forever, to be found and used in a situation against you!

Pete Conway said:

Careful what statements you cast away into the internet, they have a way of always being there.... forever, to be found and used in a situation against you!

Click to expand...

Wow, too late!!!

roadyroad said:

Wow, too late!!!

Click to expand...

Yeah, it happens, a day late and a whoops short!

SB83 said:

Yes, the FOV choice is weird. I'd struggle to drive like that, seated 2 rows back from the dashboard.

Click to expand...

Well, this looks like a 49'' screen, which means a 32:9 ratio, from less than 1 meter to the driver's eye.
If we put that into the trusty FOV calculator, we are getting some pretty insane settings.

A 49'' 32:9 screen gives you at

60 cm view distance an FOV of 90 degrees (horizontal)
70 cm view distance an FOV of 81 degrees (horizontal)
80 cm view distance an FOV of 74 degrees
90 cm view distance an FOV of 67 degrees
1m view distance an FOV of 62 degrees

So that screen at a close enough distance might actually give you some decent angle.
Even at 1 meter that gives you more FOV than my 34'' at 68 cm, which gives me 61 degrees FOV, which is decent enough.

MadDriver11 said:

Yet the second most played sim has drawn a lot of criticism for its extremely high resources usage, for the absolutely horrible shadows underneath and around other cars, the traveling shadows, for the blurred objects as soon as they are not within the cockpit, for the horrible VR performance especially vs the resources required etc etc.
Not to speak about input lag.
To the point the second most played sim developer has dumped UE into the garbage bin. If they decided to do so, there must be a reason.

Click to expand...

Add to that, that ACC can't really do a proper dynamic track surface, but has to do stuff like rain in stages instead of fully dynamic as the much maligned Pcars 2 and AMS 2 can....and both on a fraction of the resources that ACC needs.

I'm no VR user, but the fps accross the range in AMS 2 are double what I get in ACC, with much less resources used.
I run this in 3440x1440 on a 5800X3D with 64GB* DDR-3600 CL18, and an RX7900XT (Merc 310 Black Edition), MSI X570S Carbon Max Wifi, both on the same NVME drive (2TB WD SN850X), a Creative AE-5 Plus for the sound. (Don't know if that helps performance, but I just added it for completeness sake.)
And a 32 GB Pagefile, that is a holdover from DCS and testing with the old system. And while I might test for the best pagefile size in the future. I just can't be bothered right now.
As different sizes and how many split over how many drives and with a few games is a lot of work.
Scenario is a start in the middle of the field in thunderstorm conditions, aka worst case conditions.
(ACC at the Nürburgring, AMS2 at Interlagos)

And the data is as follows
0.1% fps
ACC 64.8 fps
AMS2 100.6 (+55.2% to ACC)

0.2 % fps
ACC 66.3
AMS2 103.2 (+55.7% to ACC)

1% fps
ACC 74.3
AMS 2 110.8 (49.8% to ACC)

5% fps
ACC 93.4
AMS2 124.5 (+33.3% to ACC)

Average fps
ACC 142.8
AMS2 173.7 (+21.6% to ACC)

Median fps (aka what it runs at most of the time)
ACC 156.4
AMS2 181.9 (+16.3%)

Variances are also lower in AMS 2 (see third screenshot) and the overall frametimes in AMS 2 are lower with even the spikes less severe, leading to a sim that feels overall smoother.

Also VRAM usage (rememer the RX7900XT has 20GB)

ACC
Min: 10.58-10.95 GB
Average: 10.98-11.54 GB
Max 11.16-11.8GB

AMS 2
Min 5.99-6.13 GB
Average 6-6.13 GB
Max 6.02-6.15 GB



I've attached the Screenshots for better viewing, hope you all don't mind the multiple shots.

*for DCS.