Assetto Corsa

DAIR · 20 Feb 2016 at 09:52

Gameplay wise. I'd say this is as good as if not better than PC. Feature wise I'd say PC is far better. Especially when it comes to career mode.

syks · 20 Feb 2016 at 09:59

DAIR said:
Gameplay wise. I'd say this is as good as if not better than PC. Feature wise I'd say PC is far better. Especially when it comes to career mode.

thanks,,,mmmmm maybe worth the buy then,,,i love racing games and I did love project cars on ps4,,not played it on pc yet as was undecided between this and project cars

Borsch · 20 Feb 2016 at 13:24

syks said:
I'm thinking of getting this,,,would you guys say its better than project cars? is there many cars and tracks in the game? graphics nice?

thanks

In my opinion AC is much better - because of physics and its amount of street cars. Graphics are better in PCars, but AC graphics are still nice and also clean without the excessive bloom. Physics is the biggest difference (AC creators make simulators for Ferrari, Italian racing schools and generaly have a lot of experience in the field), but number of ingame street cars also outnumber PCars' offerings by a big margin.

Plus there are laserscanned tracks in AC, better AI that tries to race clean rather than bump and grind. Career modes are equally pointless in both games imho, as there is no stuff to unlock.

Some screenshots from AC forums http://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/i...ped-content-ban-gifs-not-allowed.587/page-806

:

Screenshot_ks_nissan_gtr_ks_nordschleife_19-2-116-23-52-45.jpg

DAIR · 22 Feb 2016 at 18:02

^ what graphics card you using?

DAIR · 23 Feb 2016 at 13:43

PinkFloyd said:
Yeh definitely go newer if you can I went from a GTX660 to a GTX970 and I've gone from mostly high settings to maxed out running perfectly. Was awesome!

Up until today I had planned to get the GTX970. Then the AMD R9 290 was brought to my attention.

Thoughts? Or would you recommend I stuck with the GTX?

ci_newman · 23 Feb 2016 at 13:58

The 290x is a bargain of a card for the performance (at least second hand).

DAIR · 2 Mar 2016 at 09:30

So I went ahead and bagged the gtx970. Installed it yesterday.

Any tips on how to get the best out of it?

Fyi this is the monitor I'm currently using

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...e-led-multimedia-monitor-black-mo-064-as.html

Uncle Petey · 2 Mar 2016 at 09:48

Max out graphics settings.
Play.

Maybe see if you can get away with using DSR

Digital X · 2 Mar 2016 at 09:49

How do you mean get the best out of it? That should run fine on max/near max settings on game.

Can't remember my settings when I had one though but it's no slouch.

DAIR · 2 Mar 2016 at 09:55

When I loaded it up I noticed trees popping up in the background.

Will play around with it tonight.

thewanted · 2 Mar 2016 at 10:20

Uncle Petey said:
Max out graphics settings.
Play.

Maybe see if you can get away with using DSR

I hope he doesn't have a 1440p monitor

If I max out everything at 1440p with my 980 Ti, I "only" get an average of 77FPS.

Uncle Petey · 2 Mar 2016 at 10:50

He's at 2560x1080, so shouldn't have any probs.

DAIR said:
When I loaded it up I noticed trees popping up in the background.

That's an occasional glitch/oddity in my experience.

I remember it happening at Imola and thinking the track was really badly optimised until I played it again and the pop in was nowhere to be seen.

thewanted · 2 Mar 2016 at 10:59

Uncle Petey said:
He's at 2560x1080, so shouldn't have any probs.

Oops. Missed the link to his monitor.

I don't find that AC looks much better when all the settings are ramped up to the max. If I drop shadow update frequency to medium, shadow quality to medium, and rear-view mirror quality to high, I go from ~80FPS to ~180FPS.

Uncle Petey · 2 Mar 2016 at 11:07

I found that reflection frequency is the worst offender for improvement vs performance cost.
Shadow quality is fairly noticeable, so I'd keep that up, even it does cost a few frames.

Just dropping reflections down a notch, and frequency a bit further down (or even to static) gives a nice fps bump with virtually no noticeable difference unless you're taking photos and looking for it.

thewanted · 2 Mar 2016 at 11:12

Uncle Petey said:
I found that reflection frequency is the worst offender for improvement vs performance cost.
Shadow quality is fairly noticeable, so I'd keep that up, even it does cost a few frames.

Just dropping reflections down a notch, and frequency a bit further down (or even to static) gives a nice fps bump with virtually no noticeable difference unless you're taking photos and looking for it.

Yeah, I think it was actually reflection quality that I dropped and not shadow quality. I've messed around with the settings quite a lot this week so it's difficult to remember.

DAIR · 3 Mar 2016 at 06:41

Right seems to be running a lot better now.

Done some benchmark tests and I'm seeing steady 100 fps. Which is great but way too much for my screen. So I'll cap it at 60.

I don't think I'll being using my PS4 for much longer lol.

DAIR · 4 Mar 2016 at 11:32

Gave the Pagani Hyrausyaus thingy a try last night.

That thing is a real handful.

thewanted · 4 Mar 2016 at 11:33

DAIR said:
Gave the Pagani Hyrausyaus thingy a try last night.

That thing is a real handful.

It is. I find the Zonda R a bit easier. Presumably it has more downforce although I didn't check to see if it's on slicks.

DAIR · 4 Mar 2016 at 12:27

The fact it's turbocharged makes it more difficult. Come out of a corner whilst off boost and I'm in trouble lol. When that boost kicks in... I'm having to initiate some massive oppo-lock

Uncle Petey · 4 Mar 2016 at 13:03

Not sure if it has adjustable turbo, but if it does, you can use 1-0 (10-100%) on the top row of the keyboard to help manage boost.
Use a program like Joy2Key or Antimicro to map a couple of the keys to your wheel buttons for an easier time.