Update Speculation thread

I still don't think you're quite grasping the impact of PBR if you still insist that texture compression would make more of a difference. Check out these examples from Unity that I made myself.




Notice how the reflections of white light aren't simply a single smooth "spot", but rather have multiple areas and bounces from where it "goes within" the material and interacts with multuple layers? And how the distribution of light and reflections is less uniform and more scattered, as it would be in real life? You can't get results like these in a traditional renderer - something like Beam's implementation of Torque would simply have smoother looking materials (normal maps notwithstanding), because there aren't layers to the materials for light to interact with.

At its core, lighting is *THE* fundamental part of what makes or breaks a renderer, and having those calculations based on the real world physical properties of light and materials makes everything look infinitely more "grounded" and like you're looking at a real world scene as opposed to something cartoony. Even these simple materials I threw together in a matter of minutes in Unity, because all the hard work was already done in implementing PBR, looks miles ahead of anything a traditional renderer could output

 

I is not me who is not understanding, at least that is how I see this mess.

Good implementation of illumination and traditional means is not going to be far off from quickly slapped in PBR which barely works, it is not a magic cure that is the point which from some reason is not understood here, it is like presumed PBR would give impressive results straight out of the box without realizing how much work already is put to traditional rendering engine and how much it would take to make PBR to even work without giving blue or green screen or just crashing constantly.

I am not saying that PBR can't look good, I'm saying it is not automatically going to solve everything and look awesome. It does not solve magically all the issues in rF2 either, nothing works like that, there is going to be several generations of PBR games and eventually it will work awesomely. You are presuming that PBR implementation would be perfect or really good, does not happen quite so simply, new ways need to be learned and lot of fail will happen with them.

Also before texture compression upgrade BeamNG skins were quite blurry mess, with new compression improvement was a huge at least to my eyes and that is level X of improvement to visual looks, you improve visual looks by that amount (level X) by whatever means and it is going to be big improvement, if improvement is Level X minus tiny bit, it still is big improvement, even it is not more than what texture compression improved visual appearance.

Well, obviously that either is not understood and from some odd reason it is taken as claim as texture compression changes way rendering works more than PBR from some odd random reasons, which don't make sense at all, but that is always how it is when trying to explain something, people presume instead of read how it is written.

Why you are presuming that I'm thinking about perfect PBR vs perfect traditional renderer situation? That is causing you to misread my point completely. (yes, my point still is, PBR is not automatically making everything awesome, it can also looks shitty if fail happens, which does happen, especially with new things and as can seen with rF2 it is not giving much over traditional renderer if traditional one is just tweaked further).

No, it is not really your fault, but I'm just tired of this world presuming constantly without even trying to understand what was idea behind the text, just because that is average way, hence I write less and less.
--- Post updated ---

Green screens, black screens, crashing, things looking totally weird, for some it would cause game run 3fps for no apparent reason, amount of trouble from even a single change can be quite amusing, it does not work like just putting it in, nothing never does. Like faster UI, in theory simple thing, in practice well you have probably noticed amount of trouble it has given to some of the people.
To my understanding PBR still needs light sources to work and what if light sources are not quite the perfect?

Sure it would be nice to have all the bells and whistles, but when there are these unforeseen challenges always happening, they need time allocation and it can be quite bit more than one can guess.

Like when you get odd green sky when setting TOD to near sunset, with PBR you would still get odd green sky with light source being really weird and making PBR work all odd ways beyond imagination, sun might be like if illumination would be a candle and blinker might burn everything white, there just is not knowing other than that with this engine you don't usually get quite what you presume, there are challenges beyond imagination.

Tdev wrote that what T3D has is completely incompatible, also as previously has been written, there probably is not much original code left as since forking off from T3D all has been written again, while base looks similar, thing is not compatible, it is not just take and put in as what thing relies on is different, it would mean rewriting much much more and completely new issues which kind nobody here me included can even imagine.

If it would be as easy as just taking from new T3D and pasting into BeamNG, surely developers would do it, but it is never so easy, more likely is that it will cause house of dominoes to shift and that would be year of more work or something like that on completely different area than implementing PBR from T3D in order to make implementing even possible, idk.

Sure it would be huge improvement eventually, after 2 years of struggle or something like that, but might be people want game bit sooner than delaying 2 years or something like that, I don't really know how long it would take, but I know generally in any development things take longer than what people generally think and there are issues that most will never even realize being possible issues.

That is why there is golden rule about software development, stick to plan, no matter how great ideas you are given, stick to your plan, otherwise development time becomes insanely long or product will be hugely buggy, which are things so often seen in this industry.

 

PBR would change the light sources though, it's not as if you can have a blend of PBR and traditional light sources, or at least in the way you're implying. So yes, in theory, the green sky "weird light source" issue *would* be fixed, as the light sources have to have the same properties as real ones in order to fit a PBR workflow.

And yes, I do think that PBR is "automatically" better than normal when it's actually implemented. Issues you mention such as overly bright blinkers and a blinding sun would almost immediately be fixed, even the most idiotic of devs wouldn't let those mistakes get past the earliest of phases.

Even the screenshots you've shown of rFactor 2's PBR assets (only the cars are PBR-friendly so far, the track materials haven't been updated as far as I'm aware), with their "overly reflective" properties, as you say, look much more plausible and nuanced than a legacy-lit renderer. That's only a half-done implementation and it still looks way better than the old style stuff, so yes, I do think its mere presence makes an engine better.

 

rF2 has cars without PBR materials, only few are using PBR to my knowledge, you select which shader to use and most don't have PBR shader, but their older shaders.

Either old shader works with PBR light sources or then other way around, I don't know, but certainly older mods from time before PBR work there like PBR enabled cars are working too with their fancy dashboards where PBR shows it greatest advantage over traditional, imo.

With time, surely PBR can go far further, but at least in rF2 I would say they have lot of work ahead, it is that much more in there of what 4K or 8K textures and good specular+normal mapping can achieve, but there is then performance aspects with that route.

Considering, Lester Special edition looks really good and how light works in it is really good too, I don't see why cars would not be as good even without using PBR, that is if Lester is not PBR enabled, which I really don't know, it does look hugely better than most tracks what comes to textures and illumination though.

Certainly can't agree that PBR in rF2 would of be huge improvement, sure compared to old weak texture work those new cars are improvement, but gap is a lot less if we would look higher quality texture work, that is biggest issue with these before PBR and with PBR comparisions, what if same amount of time and effort is put to improve textures etc. instead, how much there really would be difference then? Obviously PBR is much better in how it works and obviously when rF2 team gets it implemented fully with proper polish and tune, it will be incredible, but what I see now with my eyes is not such a huge leap, that is of course yet as always with new stuff.

Currently Project Cars 2 is still achieving replication of that paint quite well even compared to rF2 (illumination might be even better illusion with all the fakery going on), also Automobilista 2 that will use PC2 engine will be really nice, rF2 has potential to be better when improved, but it is not miles ahead, again, yet.


I would say that illumination would need to be fixed in order to move PBR and PBR itself does not cause the fix, it requires which might then be who knows how much work.

Would think that fixing HDR and tone mapping might be more interesting in regards of this game, as Luis replied to Brother Dave, that might be something hopefully coming, that is at least withing scope of speculation.

That and better texture works might actually give quite bit of advantage over what there is now, if then there could even be some improvements to illumination coming, that would be really great.

 

Why are u guys talking about these stuff?

 

Update Speculation
*shrugs*

 

Update Spamulation Thread, sponsored by PBR

 

TDev said it will not happen so why speculat about it any more?

 

Well I mean he said this a few days ago, so that's not entirely true:

Although perhaps this is implying they are considering an alternative to PBR or possibly planning PBR for much later in the future?

Although he did say this a day or so later

I interpreted it as meaning no PBR any time soon, however AFAIK its not out of the question.

From what I understand is PBR is still being considered however if it was to be included it would be included much later in the future, likely after v1.0. Although I could be mistaken as it's all just speculation.

 

Well, this picture shows the Bluebuck as rather "understyled" - the body is not as striking as its real-life counterparts. It needs a bit more curviness along the sides, more pillar slope, more chrome (but no vertical bumper bars), less conspicuous windscreen, etc. It also might have somewhat too short doors and overhangs, and too small wheelarches.
What we can be sure of is that there is way too much unused room in the front between the grille, surroundings and headlamps.

 

That's right the Headlights are not even well textured in that photoshop!

Edit: Hopefully, if the car comes out, we could use it for this:

 

Because it’s a valuable addition, and discussion of it + how people view it in terms of usefulness can be valuable feedback for the devs. Beam is still an ongoing development so I’m sure nothing is set in stone and things could potentially change based on demand.

 

For real this time, a New video was put out, showing a bluebuck chassis!
https://www.beamng.com/threads/development-media.24313/page-3#post-1033169

 

bubu.mp4

 

1. Why the vertical bumper bars? They were pretty much a thing of the past by 1963

2. Great, X-frame. Could have been a nice derby car, but no, it had to get the goddamn X.

 

Vertical bumper bars were still a thing in the early/mid 60s. It's also possible that we may get alternative bumpers in the final release as either a facelift or an option, considering how new vehicles have been significantly more detailed than older vehicles in options.

 

Don`t get me wrong, I would love to have them add in PBR, it looks sooo nice from the pics you posted above.

 

I spotted a bluebuck body in the backround... Near the 4 ramps at diff angles.
--- Post updated ---
here.

 

Snipped some pictures of the Gavril bubu

note the burnside like trunk shape.

 

rear pillar looks kinda odd to me.
--- Post updated ---
Can't wait to color the Bluebuck diahhrea brown and wrap it a round a tree, hbu?