rFactor 2 Review: keeping up with the times?

GRAB_009.JPG


We wanted to take a look at rFactor 2's status in 2015, three years after the release of the first open beta. ISI's new title was initially surrounded by mixed reactions, but what's the story after so many updates and new content releases?


First things first: rFactor 2 is daunting. The sim's main strength - that is, the incredibly wide range of options and variables - can feel a tad too much for the newbie. There really is a lot of stuff to delve into, not only in terms of gameplay and simulation options but also in terms of mods and configuration files. Do stick with it though, because there's gold to be found in rFactor 2.

So, let's start with the surface, that is the graphics. I personally doubt the average simracer cares much about graphics, but after mainstream hits like Project Cars and Assetto Corsa, it's hard not to take this aspect into consideration. Well, it's not bad! RF2 can be pretty system-intensive, so Joe Average will probably have to dial the settings down, but it looks pretty decent. While not the best-looking racer by a stretch, it's perfectly capable of painting great racing scenes. It does look more natural than the first builds, as well.

Some circuits are clearly simpler and outdated, but the developers are currently working on revamping the older tracks in the roster, as well as updating the cars - which brings me to the meatier stuff: the car roster. The game content has to be downloaded through rFactor 2's fantastic launcher and content manager, but the dev team has apparently switched to a new content format, so some older cars have to be downloaded from the official website. ISI is in the process of updating those to the newer format, making them available from within the launcher, however, there's no ETA yet.

GRAB_010.JPG


One of the main flaws is that the content is kind of sparse, and always has been since launch. I believe a real-world racing series would gain rFactor 2 quite a bit of visibility, but it seems that ISI is indeed working on that. We have in fact managed to obtain pre-release access to the Stock Cars, and those certainly represent a positive step towards a more focused content roster. The dev team has recreated the 2015 NASCAR season with three different car models, obviously with fantasy car names and teams.

And oh boy, are the Stock Cars a blast. They only have four gears, but are capable of ludicrous speed and acceleration - oval racers will want to keep this in their radar. They also sound positively raucous and brutal. At the moment, only Indianapolis and Mountain Peak Speedway are suitable for the Stock Cars, but we could assume ISI is working to add more locations to go with them.

Circuits share the same philosophy as cars; they're diverse, if a bit sparse. The more recent releases are very high-quality, with very detailed trackside areas and landscapes: they're functional and look good in most circumstances, which is what ultimately matters. There's something intoxicating about ISI's replica of Monaco '66, and that circuit manages to exude a lovely vintage atmosphere – along with being an incredibly fun layout. It's more or less like the current street circuit, but faster and more streamlined.

Special mention for Lime Rock Park, which is just a great circuit that goes well with many of the official cars, and the newly released Atlanta Motorsports Park - a very original and technical addition to the roster.

GRAB_012.JPG


On-track, any notion of content lacking focus is immediately forgotten. This is where rFactor 2 really shines: the detail of the Force Feedback model is immediately apparent. While I've read many people say that FFB response is something subjective, and I tend to agree, there's a degree of nuance here that's hard to replicate in other simulators. Behind the wheel, it's always easy to know what the car is doing. Users with older wheels will have to tone it down a notch to avoid jolts and clipping, but after fiddling a bit with the configuration files (something rFactor 1 players are familiar with) it won't be an issue at all.

The FFB works in tandem with the game's dynamic road and weather features: driving on worn tires or on a wet patch of road will have noticeable effects on the steering. I don't feel the need to spend many words on the Real Road feature as well, as it's pretty straightforward and it's something unique to the game. It just works, and it adds another layer of strategy and detail to the simulation. Additionally, ISI is working on a revamp of the weather system, also adding more visual effects (like water on the windscreen, which is oddly missing here).

RF2's main selling points are online and endurance racing. However, the game's online focus doesn't detract from the AI, which is quite simply the best around. While titles like Stock Car Extreme and Raceroom feature very good CPU-controlled opponents, this winds it up a notch. I've seen AI cars battle at the Monaco hairpin, exchanging clean passes and blocking, and it was absolutely brilliant.

Obviously, its competitors are always evolving and getting updated too, but as it stands I'd argue rFactor 2 has the best AI and feature set of any sim. In terms of content, things are steadily improving, but its rivals have a bit of an edge here. Do note that some major mods like DRM and Enduracers are making its way to RF2, so that might spark a new surge in the modding scene.

In conclusion, rFactor 2 does a lot right. If you have the setup, and the willingness to fiddle around a bit with configuration, then you'll be rewarded with an unique, and extremely rewarding, experience. And if you're on the fence, there's a pretty decent demo available here.

GRAB_004.JPG


Full disclosure: ISI has very kindly provided us with review codes for the game and pre-release access to the Stock Cars. I also haven't had the chance to test the netcode, as I've been having unrelated connection problems.
 
Last edited:
Well that is your opinion of course.
Do you know of any game where Both graphics and physics are 10/10?
If so please tell me.
I don't. That's why I say one has to chose their tribe. That's my opinion.
I don't know a sim that would have 10/10 physics OR graphics. And I don't like to choose sides when you can stay in both.
Choosing "tribes" leads to communities spiting at each other because other side "doesn't like my toy".
 
I don't know a sim that would have 10/10 physics OR graphics. And I don't like to choose sides when you can stay in both.
Choosing "tribes" leads to communities spiting at each other because other side "doesn't like my toy".
You say you want both.
I will re phrase the question
Instead of
"Do you know of any game where Both graphics and physics are 10/10?
If so please tell me."

I will ask: What game has equally good physics and graphics
If no game has equally good physics or graphics you have to make a choice. That is my point.
 
You say you want both.
I will re phrase the question
Instead of
"Do you know of any game where Both graphics and physics are 10/10?
If so please tell me."

I will ask: What game has equally good physics and graphics
If no game has equally good physics or graphics you have to make a choice. That is my point.
Thats pretty much a rhetorical question from the point of view somone who would prioritize physics over everyting else.
While in reality great rF2 physics doesnt give that much value for the majority of sim players, especially if only small numbers are going to use it as majority will chose other titles because of other simple reasons like lack of MP activity, high HW requirements and such.

My point was that one doesn't need to get stuck on to one title. In addition there are other obvious factors that will lead to different choices (content, prices, MP and others).

simple example:
For somoene who has x car IRL and performs trackdays on y track, a sim with "good enough" physics of x car and y track laser scanned might be actually a better choice than another sim with better physics but which has neither x car(or anything close) or y track.
 
Last edited:
Well you say you want both and shouldn't have to choose but won't answer my question on where one can get both. If its so rhetorical then why can't you answer it.
The central plank of you argument is you should be able to get both. I simply ask where can you get both?

While in reality great rF2 physics doesnt give that much value for the majority of sim players
says who?

Further you are seeking a solution to a problem that in my view doesn't exist (RF2 graphics).

Then you go down the diffuse route of "it depends what content you need".

So what is it then, what are we talking about here: Physics, Graphics,Content, Price? ?
You have been given some solutions by some good people here.
You also have no name.
This leads me to conclude that its a waste of time debating it further with you.
So you are either a paid blogger for another "sim"or just annoying.
 
Well you say you want both and shouldn't have to choose but won't answer my question on where one can get both. If its so rhetorical then why can't you answer it.
Your question isn't precise enough and can be debatable regarding what is the meaning of "equally good".
If not going too deep into this, my answer: there isn't one equally good (not counting the stuff made for professionals).
rF2 from my perspective is currently the best platform for sim racing for a home user, but it seems the platform isn't used to its potential (as of now).

The central plank of you argument is you should be able to get both. I simply ask where can you get both?
Wrong, my point is that you can enjoy few different titles for what they are depending on your tastes or requirements. But you can't really get all in one.

says who?
MP activity, league activity, modding activity and similar are good indicators to at least get the wider picture. Amount of sales could be pretty accurate number, but I have no idea how many rF2 copies were sold.

Further you are seeking a solution to a problem that in my view doesn't exist (RF2 graphics).
I stated what I want. I definitely don't think that graphics is the reason why RF2 isn't popular as other sim titles. There are plenty of other reasons.

Then you go down the diffuse route of "it depends what content you need".
Yes, it's not that simple, you can prioritize physics, but in the end you might end using the title that isn't the best in the physics department, as per my example before.

So what is it then, what are we talking about here: Physics, Graphics,Content, Price? ?
It started from me saying that graphics isn't good, where you routed it to physics, I routed it to even more variables.

You have been given some solutions by some good people here.
A solution to adjust colors in the driver was pretty much a joke if not insult (from my perspective).

This leads me to conclude that its a waste of time debating it further with you.
So you are either a paid blogger for another "sim"or just annoying.
Actually going into extremities from your side and routing the topic to physics, for me was indicator that debate most likely won't happen (where the initial question was the graphics).

You also have no name.
I have, I just value my privacy.
 
Last edited:
However some titles allow to customize the colors/saturation/contrast and etc. For example AC without post process effects also looks quite bland, however with post processing enabled and appropriate-customized filter it looks much better and still natural (my opinion).
I am talking about CPU overhead (not overload) regarding graphics rendering (dx9), AI isn't a factor here.
Even sims like DCS (which I would say is like rF2 of flight sims) is moving to DX11, which is going to provide higher performance together with graphic improvements.

Most of those AC post-process filter options are totally fake to my eye and I'm not alone with this opinion. They change one aspect and make it too extreme (e.g. contrast, darkness), some of them looks more like watching a movie than real life. Why would anyone want a sim with a "sepia" filter that turns everything yellow? If they were confident that the sim provided realistic graphics out of the box, there wouldn't be need for 20 different filters.
 
Most of those AC post-process filter options are totally fake to my eye and I'm not alone with this opinion. They change one aspect and make it too extreme (e.g. contrast, darkness), some of them looks more like watching a movie than real life. Why would anyone want a sim with a "sepia" filter that turns everything yellow? If they were confident that the sim provided realistic graphics out of the box, there wouldn't be need for 20 different filters.
I assume most of the default filters are for "screenshot" purposes.
I do agree that stock filters are bad when it comes to normal usage, hence custom filters should be used for improved picture quality or balance. But at least an option of easy customization is there.
 
Most of those AC post-process filter options are totally fake to my eye and I'm not alone with this opinion. They change one aspect and make it too extreme (e.g. contrast, darkness), some of them looks more like watching a movie than real life. Why would anyone want a sim with a "sepia" filter that turns everything yellow? If they were confident that the sim provided realistic graphics out of the box, there wouldn't be need for 20 different filters.

I agree 100 %.
 
Sometimes I am getting a whopping ~35 fps
I am not happy with the current options

IMO: try to get good fps and more important low input lag before you try to enhance things.
Every effect/option you add, you'll reduce performance: less fps or more input lag.

- Shadows, Reflections and AA levels are mostly the FPS killers. Find a balance.
- Post effects will add lag on your system. It's nice for replay's and screenshots.

If you want a nice picture: force pre-renderd frames to a higher number, allow triple buffering, turn on vsync, etc... You'll get 60 fps and a nice picture. But lots of input lag...

But it seems you want it all. The best performance and a nice picture. ==> upgrading your system is the only option.
 
IMO: try to get good fps and more important low input lag before you try to enhance things.
Like I said I need to figure out fps drops before I go with the tweaks.
Every effect/option you add, you'll reduce performance: less fps or more input lag.
This is why I prefer not to use injectors in the first place. I would like options within game engine.

But it seems you want it all. The best performance and a nice picture. ==> upgrading your system is the only option.
Usable picture that doesn't hurt my eyes would be a good start. Since HDR changes RF2 for me looks underexposed and low contrast by default. It even caused driving errors on unknown tracks for me as I couldn't clearly see the corners/kerbs from higher ranges.

I am using 2600k@4.6ghz and 770gtx, should I upgrade my hardware when the game looks like its made a decade ago?
 
am using 2600k@4.6ghz and 770gtx, should I upgrade my hardware when the game looks like its made a decade ago?
It should not look like a decade ago: unless you are using tracks from a decade ago, converted to rF2.
A screen shot or a video might help. If you have experimented with graphic settings in the past: You might clean up your install (click here)

If you are still not happy with the contrast and saturation: use the nvidia color settings. I use it to reduce the color saturation of Iracing.
Note: There were a lot of complains about the saturation and over exposure a few builds ago in rF2. It looked unnatural, colors looked like the "teletubies".

A GTX770 is a decent graphics card: But the 2Gb Vram might be a limit if you use triple screens or DSR with a lot of cars or a big track.
 
I am using 2600k@4.6ghz and 770gtx, should I upgrade my hardware when the game looks like its made a decade ago?
FX6350 stock and 760 Hawk stock here, no problems with FPS playing at 1080p, what resolution do you play?
You said "Since HDR changes RF2 for me looks underexposed and low contrast by default" for ISI and many users were the opposite.
Therefore changes made.
It seems that the problem is on your side, and it's not a hardware problem.
 
Last edited:
Colors indeed looked like "Teletubbies". Now it looks like one step too much in another direction, but overall still better. I understand that this might be better with the screens that have boosted contrast/colors by default which is normally the case.
I am running single 1200p screen, no DSR, even set FXAA instead of AA for testing. I would expect no issues with such setup.
 
Last edited:

Latest News

How often do you meet up (IRL) with your simracing friends?

  • Weekly

    Votes: 21 9.4%
  • Monthly

    Votes: 10 4.5%
  • Yearly

    Votes: 18 8.0%
  • Weekly at lan events

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Monthly at lan events

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yearly at lan events

    Votes: 3 1.3%
  • Never have

    Votes: 175 78.1%
Back
Top