Jump to content Jump to content
F1 2021 | Online Services Update 11:00AM UK Time | Expected to last no longer than 2 hours ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by HoksuHoo

  1. More stages per location, yes. I know many players will demand 50 locations but imo more stages per location would be preferable to having lots of locations with a mere 30km each. Which really is not all that much when you think of it.
  2. Mini Cooper SX1 shift lights don't work. There is one next to the gear indicator, another in centre console, another one in steering wheel, and none of them work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z57S4tFVmzw
  3. nope.avi Adding new cars doesn't do much good when it's impossible to race these cars offline because of broken AI times in qualifiers. Why do you allow such a fixable problem to ruin offline rallycross?
  4. Unfortunately true. I'd love to see new stages for the existing locations since there is plenty of locations as is but there is only ~30km of unique road per location which is really low, with more stages we could have events don't involve driving the same stages multiple times. But this is sadly unlikely since a new location is easier to sell than a new stage for vanilla location, and it's easier to maintain the distinction between vanilla and DLC. For future titles I'd really hope that the amount of unique kilometers per location is increased.
  5. In rallycross qualifying the random times from the other races are usually way off, they should be around the same level as your physical opponents. I play career mode on elite level, or freeplay with 75-85 difficulty, and on most tracks there is a 7-8 second gap between the physical drivers you race against and the random AI times. On Killarney it's 16-20 which is just mind-boggling. 4-5 seconds per lap on a 1km track. That is a staggering mismatch. 7-8 seconds for 4 laps is huge and that is on most tracks. This makes offline racing near impossible. I can't have the kind of
  6. How about fixing the random times in qualifiers? Kinda takes the fun away from these fine cars when you can compete just fine against the physical AI drivers, but the random times from the other qualifiers are 7-20 seconds faster. This here on Killarney (the worst track in this regard, impossible to play offline unless you are near world record fast) but on most other tracks it's usually like 7-8 seconds which is more than bad enough. 16 seconds here and it's not even the worst I have seen. Randomized AI time is 4 seconds off the mark per lap on a 1km track. To put that to pe
  7. Adjusted visual appearance of FOV adjustments to prevent clipping of car interiors. ' So the clipping issue with Stratos is now fixed, cool. Problem is, the driver position with lowest FOV setting is now far too much forward with several cars. Porsche 911 SC RS is the most striking example I have seen so far, with Lancia 037 almost as bad. This is not really a cockpit view anymore, more of a dashboard view. Even with the lowest FOV setting it should be possible to have the kind of cockpit view that has A-pillar and instruments clearly visible. Like this: The driver positi
  8. Some tarmac textures have very visible compression artifacts, it's especially visible in daytime Spain where in some places the tarmac is quite prominently purple and green like in this shot, and the one in my previous post. I have textures and track on ultra Steam, super deluxe edition 1230v3, GTX 1070, 16gb ram, SSD, Windows 10, SB Z 2D, 2560x1440 60Hz Logitech G920+shifter
  9. Ford RS200 has a very low-res and blurry texture between bonnet and dashboard. Kind of sticks out in an otherwise good-looking interior. I have textures and vehicle details on ultra Steam, super deluxe edition 1230v3, GTX 1070, 16gb ram, SSD, Windows 10, SB Z 2D, 2560x1440 60Hz Logitech G920+shifter
  10. Finland in daytime/clear and daytime/overcast has a horrible looking thick fog on it. Completely unrealistic for the weather (I live in Finland so I would know, also every single Finnish player says this is not even close to how it looks like in reality), looks painfully awful, and you can barely see the road in what should be crystal clear weather with no fog at all. Yes, I know that you said it's "for performance reasons" but that just isn't a good enough answer. Adding this kind of horrible fog that makes it look awful is absolutely not the right way to increase performanc
  11. Some careless moron left this generator in my way
  12. Nope. Fiat 131, Alpine and Kadett are base game cars. The "DLC" you are referring to is a microtransaction that instantly unlocks the cars in career
  13. Maybe you should patiently wait for next generation of consoles then, surely the gameplay will be improved in the next game. As per your own brilliant advice You don't seem to understand what the problem even is. "your effects of sun, fog, or others"
  14. That doesn't even compare and you know it. Stop talking about next console generation or future Dirt Rally games. Nothing to do with anything. Finland in daytime is far worse than it was in DR1, it's far worse than other locations, and it needs to be fixed
  15. Wha? That first question doesn't even make sense. You seem to have severely misunderstood some of my post. The existence of consoles does not mean Finland absolutely must have a horrible looking on it. Numerous games run just fine on consoles while looking decent, and other locations in DR2.0 do too. Dusk and sunset in Finland do. Codemasters have just done a shockingly bad job with the daytime weather. They added a horrible fog "for performance reasons" when what they should have done is increase performance in other ways. A DLC with a iconic and beloved real-life rally location is
  16. Not rude no, just an extraordinarily out of touch with reality assertion. I'm sure it's entirely possible to give some information without sharing the entire game code.
  17. This is a very bizarre and nonsensical thing to say. They could explain it in far more depth and detail, they have told us very little. No one here is asking to see the entire game code. They could explain why, out of all the countless things developers can do to increase performance, they picked a horrible looking fog that make it look painfully bad. They could explain why and how their "visual upgrade" has resulted in Finland looking a hell of a lot worse than in DR1. To me it just says they have done an astonishingly awful job. They could explain why they think Finland DLC is
  18. Consoles and low-end PCs might be why they had to make changes "for performance reasons", but that doesn't excuse Codemasters making a shockingly poor job with the performance increase. Adding this kind of horrible looking fog to what should be clear weather with no fog is absolutely NOT the right way to increase performance. The impression I get is they were planning a fog-free good looking realistic Finland like you see in their screenshots but shortly before release they realized it doesn't run on consoles, so they make a 5-minute performance increase job that makes it look horrible. W
  19. Can't really see it clearly in the trees when you can't see the trees... Right, early fall instead of summer. Still dry and warm daytime though that should not have fog let alone this kind of thick, low-visibility fog. I live in Finland so I know a few things about what Finland looks like in real life. Believe me, DR2.0 Finland in daytime looks nothing at all like reality. Those promo screenshots are what it should look like. Besides Codies literally just admitted the fog is "for performance reasons". It's not there to look real, it's just an extremely shoddy job at making it run bet
  20. In addition to looking painfully awful, the fog is COMPLETELY unrealistic in what should be dry, clear, hot summer daytime weather with no fog at all. The game should attempt to realistically portray different weather conditions in real-world locations, no? This is a complete failure in that regard too. This is what daytime/clear should realistically look like. Crystal clear with no fog
  21. Just goes to show that graphical fidelity alone is utterly worthless (or rather, extremely counterproductive in this case) if you muck up the visual style and overall looks. Low fidelity with clear, realistic visuals is a hell of a lot more immersive and enjoyable to play than high fidelity that needs a horrible fog "for performance reasons". Heavily downgrading graphics in DR2.0 Finland would actually make it look far better.
  22. Dude, you seem to confuse me with someone else. I made a suggestion/question regarding the club, wasn't even looking to start an argument but for some reason people want to argue about things while claiming posting about it will change nothing.
  23. Wow really, why didn't I think of that. I don't suppose there's much point trying to explain to you that the fog should not be there in the first place. Who cares of such details when you can drive towards the part where there are no trees visible in the fog. Thanks for the helpful post
  24. In some places you can barely see the road. And it's not just a question of visibility, thick fog like that on what should be clear weather with no fog at all is just so painful to look at and unrealistic it's not enjoyable to play.
  • Create New...