is this good or bad for Dirt Rally ?

[JZStudios 631]

Well, I don't know about these lower graphical standards making faster times, but I think anything other than a 900dor wheel should be banned. I mean, using a pad is way too unrealistic, and you can turn from full lock to full lock with a 1/2 inch thumb movement. Arcade. Popcorn. Any wheel that uses less than 900 or 1080 means the older cars aren't being simulated properly. This is a sim game, not some arcade popcorn racer like Need For Speed. If people don't have a wheel, then they don't get to play. It's their fault for trying to play a racing sim with an obviously inferior, yet still advantageous method of controlling a virtual car. No one does that in real life. Buy a wheel or don't play the game. Arcade. Popcorn..... popcorn.... arcade....popcorn.

Also, there should only be an ultra preset, so all these inferior PotatOS can't play so everyone's on equal terms.

[thecraicbear 0]

RinusRally said:

I do agree 900/1080 + softlock should be "locked" in sim-racing games. Also cockpit should be locked. So everyone is racing in equal enivoriment. and only skillz + techniques matter. 

The only negative of this is that it will be discriminating against people with physical disabilities, who may not be able to handle the movement required to use a car like the Mk2 Escort in the game. 
Even if a dev isn't wanting to make the game widely accessible via choice of control methods, they'll more than likely do it anyway because they will catch a lot of shit from people it's excluding, due to said disabilities. 

[RyuMakkuro 6]

RinusRally said:

I do agree 900/1080 + softlock should be "locked" in sim-racing games. Also cockpit should be locked. So everyone is racing in equal enivoriment. and only skillz + techniques matter. 

If you make it so only steering wheel users (and we're talking about those with an expensive one) can play the game, the sales will go down more than you think. You think that from around 270k owners of DiRT Rally everyone have a steering wheel? Or even 10% has it? Steering wheel users are a niche, believe it or not.

If skill and technique is the only thing that matters, then camera view and type of input is irrelevant. Why? Because each and every single input method requires a different approach, therefore a different skill. That means you're opening the doors for people who are skilled in different way than the steering wheel users. Effectively, you're making skill and technique matter more. For WR runs camera view doesn't matter. So does input as well. It's HOW you use it that matters.

Fucking blind elitists. Wonder if you would be talking so loud without being able to afford all those steering wheels and what not and being forced to play on a keyboard.

[dgeesi0 305]

the thing is even on the lowest settings for a wheel you have to make movement .
on a mouse its nothing.you can move a mouse a split hair. you cant be that precise with a wheel or joypad. thats the thing.
so its nothing about banging the elitest drum.
put both hands on your wheel do a left right left right.
now do it with your mouse ! ;). there is no argument about it.the mouse is easier to control.

as for poorer or people with disabilities fair enough. use a mouse .

[YoMrWhite 11]

JZStudios said:

Well, I don't know about these lower graphical standards making faster times, but I think anything other than a 900dor wheel should be banned. I mean, using a pad is way too unrealistic, and you can turn from full lock to full lock with a 1/2 inch thumb movement. Arcade. Popcorn. Any wheel that uses less than 900 or 1080 means the older cars aren't being simulated properly. This is a sim game, not some arcade popcorn racer like Need For Speed. If people don't have a wheel, then they don't get to play. It's their fault for trying to play a racing sim with an obviously inferior, yet still advantageous method of controlling a virtual car. No one does that in real life. Buy a wheel or don't play the game. Arcade. Popcorn..... popcorn.... arcade....popcorn.

Also, there should only be an ultra preset, so all these inferior PotatOS can't play so everyone's on equal terms.

Honestly, I think that was meant as irony.

[TonyRickard 17]

dgeesi0 said:

the thing is even on the lowest settings for a wheel you have to make movement .
on a mouse its nothing.you can move a mouse a split hair. you cant be that precise with a wheel or joypad. thats the thing.
so its nothing about banging the elitest drum.
put both hands on your wheel do a left right left right.
now do it with your mouse ! ;). there is no argument about it.the mouse is easier to control.

as for poorer or people with disabilities fair enough. use a mouse .

Yeh but the point being made is that flicking a wheel 180 degrees to simulate turning a wheel 720 degrees can be done in a relative split hair compared with the real thing. If there is a problem it is that turning a wheel full (or near to full) lock seems to work pretty well in DiRT Rally at speed whereas you never see real world drivers doing this except doing a three point turn after an off!

[xkevlarx 0]

This must be the greatest troll thread I've seen in recent history. Discriminating people based on their peripherals....

But seriously guys, get a grip.

[shadow118 18]

dgeesi0 said:

it takes away from any skill of using a wheel.
its easier to control a mouse.
mouse will have far more precise movements than any wheel, joypad.
it ruins any kind of integrity of a driving game if once perfected mouse driving is faster which i can see it being a huge advantage.

Have you driven with a mouse? If not, download Live for Speed demo and try it. It's not as easy as you say. The problem is that there is no feedback, only a visual one from the in-game wheel. And unlike a controller or the keyboard, there is no fixed midpoint. If you let go of the controls on a controller or keyboard, the steering goes back to centre. With a mouse you constantly have to look at the in-game wheel animation. While it is more precise, it is a lot harder to get out of fishtails or straighten a drift and stuff like that (it's harder to react when things go wrong). 

[F2CMaDMaXX 505]

Ignoring the control thing going on here, i'm more interested in the crazy stage times part.  Most devs have issues with low detail not having as much cover for enemies etc. (first person shooters) but they got round that making it so even if the gfx level isn't turned up, they still don't draw what wouldn't be seen.

However, having actual stage geometry change and not just the surrounding parts of the track, is crazy, so actually less bumps on the track part with lower detail?!  easiers acceleration and braking as a result?

[function9 0]

I would have a hard time believing changing any geometry settings in the menu or even ini files would actually reduce bumps. The collision properties for those surfaces I believe is defined in the 3d file(s) itself. So, visually it can look quite different between ultra and ultra low quality, but no changes have been made to the actual structure of the map.






This is quake3, anyone familiar with it knows there's a cvar "r_subdivisions" that can be used to reduce the detail of map geometry. However, even as extreme as some of the changes may look, THEY DO NOTHING TO THE ACTUAL MAP ITSELF. In fact, in the case of q3, using a higher subdivisions setting (lower geometry detail) would let you better see the structure (and collision behavior) of different surfaces of the map. There is the advantage of greater visibility in some cases using lower geometry detail, but again, at no time does this change the actual map. That's why at a competitive level, unless it was locked, it was always preferred to use a higher subdivisions setting than a lower one.

There's a flip side to this too. If a mapper hasn't taken care to make sure that the lowest geometry detail setting still accurately depicts the map, as a player you could run into things you don't see with lower settings but are actually part of the map.

[F2CMaDMaXX 505]

Right, so what we're saying here is there is either a catastrophic failure in the stage designs, or someone is lying about the geography changing.

I've still not seen proof.

[Darhour 3]

I tried driving a car in AC with a mouse and I ended up with terrible results; I quickly lose focus on taking corners in a fast pace. 

[function9 0]

F2CMaDMaXX said:

Right, so what we're saying here is there is either a catastrophic failure in the stage designs, or someone is lying about the geography changing.

I've still not seen proof.

True. There's also a couple other possibilities when it comes to time discrepancies. Again, using q3 as an example, the physics were actually tied to FPS. When the game was originally released back in '99 it was based on 85 fps and the default com_maxfps value was 85. Shortly after it was released people realized that certain jumps were only possible when using com_maxfps 125. After a few point releases id corrected the game to work with 125fps. And eventually, people found when using like 333fps they could jump even farther, higher, faster than with 125fps. When id reintroduced q3 as quakelive they made the physics independent of FPS.

So maybe this is an old way of doing things (the DR engine is old yes?) but it could be a possibility. Though I'd like to think if this were the case they were aware of it and fixed it either with an fps cap or unlinked the physics/fps.

The other one I think is that people underestimate just how much higher FPS affects how smooth and responsive a game feels, even when using a 60hz monitor. I've played every version of quake since the original came out in '96, more fps is always better and always provides a smoother, more responsive experience. Provided the game isn't buggy to begin with. For fast paced action games, you always want higher fps.

Just a minute ago I hopped into DR on Bidno Moorland Reverse. For the settings I'm using I avg about 110-120 while driving there. Changed a few settings and was averaging 220-230. The difference in how responsive the game felt was night and day. This is with some cheap 24" Asus 60hz monitor. Yes, I'm still only seeing 60fps. But it felt like a different game. So, lowering graphics settings may not be exploiting any bugs in the game, but it's giving the player more fps and giving them a smoother, more responsive experience than what they had before. And they might think that difference in feel actually changed some of the game's mechanics.

[RyuMakkuro 6]

function9 said:
So maybe this is an old way of doing things (the DR engine is old yes?) but it could be a possibility.

It's old as in previous gen (PS3/x360 generation). I'm more than certain that the FPS doesn't impact physics in any way (responsiveness increase is purely due to lower input lag and the game itself has stuttering issues with which higher framerate helps). Tessellation however does impact the geometry and may have an impact on the collision system. AFAIK it's being utilised in DiRT Rally.

I mean let's be realistic here. Comparing a 99/2000 shooter with a rally sim of 2015 is kind of... out of place. There has been leaps and bounds in advancement of the 3D graphics (aforementioned tessellation is the best example) since then. And even then you're comparing FPS game which doesn't really put that much emphasis on collision detection of the road surface with a rally simulator, which main priority is to nail the collision detection of different road surfaces.

[TonyRickard 17]

I am sensitive to FPS which I put down to my ability to react. The more fluid the motion the better, I am not convinced it is down to the physics or environment being any different, just the fluidity, any kind of stuttering or jerkiness and it affect my times. The same with input lag and vsync, which I find impacts my ability to control the car. These are very personal though and some people can be really fast on rigs I would say are unplayable.

There were similar threads about Assetto Corsa in its early access suggesting the physics changed with fps but I think the general consensus was that fluidity resulted in better control.

[KevM 44]

Hard to know, as I had quickly combined both methods when I noticed the big advantage.  

[F2CMaDMaXX 505]

function9 said:

F2CMaDMaXX said:

Right, so what we're saying here is there is either a catastrophic failure in the stage designs, or someone is lying about the geography changing.

I've still not seen proof.

Just a minute ago I hopped into DR on Bidno Moorland Reverse. For the settings I'm using I avg about 110-120 while driving there. Changed a few settings and was averaging 220-230. The difference in how responsive the game felt was night and day. This is with some cheap 24" Asus 60hz monitor. Yes, I'm still only seeing 60fps. But it felt like a different game. So, lowering graphics settings may not be exploiting any bugs in the game, but it's giving the player more fps and giving them a smoother, more responsive experience than what they had before. And they might think that difference in feel actually changed some of the game's mechanics.

So you'd have to cap your FPS here too.  Otherwise you can't separate FPS from speed the game's running at.  60hz means you's only seeing updates at 60fps, but it doesn't mean you're not running faster.  Can you do that?

[PaloSamo 0]

Err... How do you get 220-230 FPS with a 60Hz monitor? I'm kinda old now, my brain is not so fresh anymore ;)

[dgeesi0 305]

you just dont have v sync on :)

god help the rippling though :D

[PaloSamo 0]

Yeah, but the monitor will not display additional FPS, right? So where's the advantage? (I know I sound like a noob, maybe I am one in this regard ;).

[MrDeap 12]

RinusRally said:

60hz + 200 fps results is smoother gameplay/input.  However, I suggest to cap it to 60fps cause of heat issues, etc. If you want more than 60fps. You better buy a 120 or 144hz monitor and cap your fps at 120 or 144. Do mind 144hz will not clock your memory clock back if you idle. So you gpu will be hotter than 120hz that clocks back when idle. So do suggest 120hz cause of this. 

You can also  go lightboost but downloading lightboost program thingy. You can google it. The trick is your fps must always be equal to 100 or 120hz or the lightboost effect will be worser. Lightboost + 100/120hz will be smoother, clearer and better than non-lightboost 60hz, 85, 100 and 120hz. 

Underclock the graphic card & leave the framerate unlocked. It will fix the heat issue.

[dgeesi0 305]

or just get a decent card with decent cooler :D

[PaloSamo 0]

Thanks guys. So basically GPU squeezes in extra information to the 60Hz monitor inbetween frames to make it smoother?

[RyuMakkuro 6]

PaloSamo said:

Thanks guys. So basically GPU squeezes in extra information to the 60Hz monitor inbetween frames to make it smoother?

Basically it produces whatever amount of frames in a second while the monitor displays only 60 of them. And usually not even whole 60, as it won't be synced and it will try displaying few at a times resulting in what is known as screen tearing (for example upper part of the screen will be a different frame than the bottom).

Benefit of this is that the CPU will take into account your input more often (for example 200FPS results in taking input 200 times per second). Downside of it is that you don't exactly know when your input was taken, so while it is more responsive it may also feel less intuitive as your input is not synced with what you see. If someone is playing on a 60Hz refresh rate at 240FPS, then he'll effectively be seeing only 1/4th of those frames. That means 75% of the visual feedback is going to be wasted. In those 3 frames that you don't see, there may happen something that will make you crash. It's a possibility which you have to take into account.

Naturally running at unlocked frame rate means your GPU or CPU (depends which is the bottleneck, most likely GPU nowadays) will be working at full load (well, 99% to be exact) which will not only produce more heat but also increase the power draw (which results in a bigger electricity bill). So while it may not be big of an issue for some people, it's generally advised to lock the framerate to what you can use rather than going full on. Definitely extends the lifetime of your components.

It's worth pointing out, that some games react to higher FPS numbers better than the others. DiRT Rally for example is a game with... stuttering issues that are solved by a higher FPS number. The higher the FPS, the less stuttering you'll experience. Most games don't have those issues and you really don't benefit from higher framerates without a monitor that can support them. For example I play better in Battlefield 3 while locked to 78FPS than when running at 90-120FPS. Sounds like placebo effect, but tested it quite often and my accuracy on average was worse by 2-3%. So there you have it.

[PaloSamo 0]

Thanks Ryu, everything is clear as the sky on a sunny day, although the latter is yet to be seen where I live...