How much would pay for a laser scanned version of a track?

Compared to other sims, the track price is relatively affordable... If we were given the chance to pay extra for a laser scanned version, how much you would pay?

 

I think it´s a gimmick, just like Esports. A laser scan is a snapshot of how a track was the month it was scanned so it´s going to be out of date pretty quickly.
Since the trend seems to be to take tracks from the AMS2 roster, I´d like to see historic versions of them - to me that gives much more added play value.

 

Ever played a laserscan track? It's impossible to say what you say. RR tracks are as smooth as an airstrip. And historical versions appeal to a niche within a niche of gamers. So for me a laserscan track comes before a historical track. As a new graphics engine should come first for RR currently. Anyway if these evolutions arent made the players will go elsewhere

 

Why does it matter? Non-laser-scanned track won't be "on date" at all.

 

I have AC; RF2, RRE and AMS2 and honestly could not tell you which tracks are laser scanned and which not in each game just by driving. I doubt a professional driver would be able to either unless there was something really off with a corner angle but not based on the track surface alone. What they will say is there is too much or too little grip but that´s likely more to be a physics issue than anything a laser scan would solve. This is linked to the limitation that RRE has with fixed track temp, no dynamic evolution or weather and I think that is one thing that has a a higher priority than laser scanning for realism.

In a game like RRE, where there is historic car content, it would be logical to include older versions of tracks - in ACC, obviously not so much.

 

I think it's obvious why you can't tell if it's laser scan or not, you play with a keyboard!! If you would use a Direct Drive wheel you can tell the lack of subtle road surface details and deformation. When you add a motion rig on top of that you can feel the deformation of the road moving the car in a subtle manner, making the simulation extremely real/immersive. To prove my point, I could tell you the difference between the same track in RRE and iRacing in a blind test. That's how different a laser scanned track is versus a manually built surface.

 

Yes, a keyboard removes any feedback to your hands but the kerbs, bumps and deformations are still going to be sent to the car and it should react to them requiring setup adjustments. In RRE, I don´t perceive that the allegedly laser scanned Ring is more realistic than say Blister Berg. Between sims, the car handling is what I notice more e.g. the RRE cars are generally less twitchy/reactive than on AMS2 but they have less possibility to drift or catch slides.

 

I was assuming the reason for paying a premium was more realism. If neither are relevant then I´ll stick with the cheaper one!

 

Just been driving Donington in the Porsche 911 Cup Deutschland and there's plenty coming through the wheel. Only using a t300.

 

That was not the question...

 

It has nothing to do with "on date". Laserscan tracks have much more relief and track detail. Generally speaking the tracks of RR are much too smooth compared to other sims. Som find it hard to accept that other sims do better in some areas. You just have to be inspired

 

I don't know why you pressed "Disagree" on my comment because that's exactly what I mean. Being "on date" doesn't matter when we're talking about the difference between laser scanned tracks and not scanned tracks. So bringing this up isn't an argument against laser scanning.

"Realistic" and "always being up-to date" is not the same. A laser-scanned and non-laser-scanned track both get out of date, but the former will be realistic for at least one moment in time while the latter will never be equally accurate to begin with.

It's like with a movie. Filming live actors will at least capture their exact appearance at one moment of their lives, while using 3D models of them will not.

 

Like I also said, the grip level of the asphalt is not laser scanned - it´s guesswork, so neither option is realistic. That´s why I think laser scanning is a gimmick and not worth a premium.

 

From what I understood, a non laser scanned track can be just as good as a laser scanned track. The road mesh that is created, combined with the tyre-to road physics simulation determines the feel that you have in the wheel (depending on the wheel you have of course).
Therefore I'd rather have a high quality non laser scanned track than a lower quality laser scanned one.

 

A laser-scan does not reproduce road texture level details, that is a myth, there is too much noise in a LiDAR mesh. It will capture large bumps, cambers and the overall proportions of the circuit. It is up to the track modeller to decide how much road texture they add to the mesh. RaceRoom's seem to err on the side of silky smooth at least on tracks they did in the past. Also the tyre model used has a big impact on how much road feel there is depending on how much lateral tyre movement the model allows.

 

This. And those that claim they have road texture down to the mm through Lazer scanning are being economical with the truth. Lots of the data from a Lazer scan is just thrown away anyway. It's very good for making sure everything is in the right spot exactly, barriers, buildings, apexes etc. But it's not the magic solution some people think it is.

 

It would be interesting to know the cost and time involved in making a track using the different methods available.

 

And then combined with the absolute difference it yields between the methods

 

Here´s an interesting video about Esports and the apparently laser scanned Spa track showing that if there are janky physics then it doesn´t matter.

 

Regarding laser scans for surface feel, you should also keep in mind, that a very dense road mesh doesn't automatically contribute to more details that can be felt. We have a physics tick rate of 400Hz. So going 290km/h, what is around 80m/s would equal 400Hz/80m/s=5 physics refreshs per travelled meter. That would mean "road mesh points" with distances below 20cm could not be perceived at that speed, anyway. For going half that speed, there would be a refresh every 10cm of travel, though. But you see there's a point where it doesn't make sense putting a lot of effort in something, that doesn't bring any advantage after all (besides very accurate elevation and camber changes of the track, of course)
Although the ffb refresh rate is not directly coupled to physics refresh rate, since it's CPU load dependent and thus variable, I think you get my point. So trying to replicate a road mesh down to the millimetre would just be data overkill.

Oli