Yeah shadows were set to Low to try to get a similar framerate between all three. With my 5600 and 6700XT it is usually the GPU which is the limiting factor.
@@layingblacklinesThe entire point of this video, per the title, was to compare GRAPHICS... but you reduced graphics on more demanding games within the comparison to make the framerate equal and therefore make otherwise visually pleasant racing sims look like complete crap 🤦🏼♂️
@@YTB_JSNFARRELL Yeah maybe it's not for everyone, but for me framerate is most important for sims. Low input lag and smoothness is most important for me. So this is a comparison of what all the games look like when they feel smooth. I could max out ACC but it would only run around 60 fps and be like a slideshow.
Yeah I might do that. I don't think I'll get the same FPS, but would be interesting to see the difference in performance when it's looking more comparable to the other two.
Yeah shadows on low. It's not the best demonstration of how good ACC can look. It's just how my game looks on my computer when trying to run at high refresh rates. I will try to tweak my settings to have shadows on high and turn something else down instead. But this is more of a comparison of how each game looks given the same computing resources and targeting high framerates.
@@layingblacklines Try lowering the resolution to 1920x1080p. You will probs be able to max out all other settings and get more frames than in this video.
As much as I love rFactor 2, I have to ask, why did you leave the shadows set to low for ACC? Comparing the graphics and not having the max detail and effects set is kind of sucks.
I just had the three sims as I run them for online racing. Even with the lower settings ACC had the lowest framerate. It's possible to make it look better than I had it, but I'd have to upgrade my computer if I wanted it to run at similar fps to rF2 and iRacing. There's been many complaints that I did that, but honestly when you are comparing the games you tend to have the same computer for each one don't you. So given X computing power, this is how they all look and run.
@@layingblacklines So when the new Assetto Corsa or LeMans Ultimate comes out, you're going to set your details to low and then make a video saying that both titles look tragic...? :))
@@alexandrmacek it's not a marketing piece. Just a comparison how they all run on the same hardware. That's why I had the frame counter and usage charts up there. CPUs around 5600 pace are common. GPUs around 6700XT pace are common. Single screen 1440p is middle of the road. And many want to race at 100+ fps. So it's just a comparison of how they all look and perform on average hardware. I really doubt LMU will look terrible. Probably a small step up from rF2, with a small performance hit. ACC can look beautiful, but it's probably the least efficient in that you need a step up in hardware for it to even match the other two. Still plenty good to race though. I have no problems with the graphics in ACC. Just doesn't look as good as AC I don't think.
@@layingblacklines The problem with your video is that it doesn't compare the graphics of the games, as you state in the title, but the performance of your PC. That's why the video is misleading. Plus I don't know anyone who wants to play with the low setting in the game. From that perspective, the informational value of the video is zero. It's also interesting in that I'm driving on similar hardware (Ryzen 5600 + RX 6600 XT) and in ACC, FPS are mostly in the 80-110 range during races. This is all with the graphics set to HIGH or EPIC, 2560x1080 resolution. And I haven't even tried FSR.. :)
@@alexandrmacekAre you able to try running at 3440x1440 resolution at Brands Hatch with a few AI? Here I'm getting about 120 fps. Which is around the point where any more fps gets harder to tell the difference to me. So like an ideal minimum for me. Though obviously you can still play down to 70 fps. It just feels like a slideshow though when you are used to higher frame rates. I prefer FSR to when I used DLSS on an NVidia card, but still prefer not to use it if possible. My current settings do have higher shadow settings now because I don't race online with ACC much any more.
what's the best racing sim if your not of fan of multiplayer games but want to do career modes and AI racing ? I have got GT7 on ps5 and the PSVR2 but also have the Logitech pro wheel with it as picked one up cheap that was used. I just got a new PC and have been dabbling with asset Comp and the new Forza motorsport, which feel terrible in every aspect to me, the graphics feels off, the wheel feels off, the Fram rate is all over the place.
Ah really? I'm going to have a root around and see if I can find it. Only thing more cheesy than the watermark on replays is hearing the American commentators at Jerez talking about iRacing.
I may be a little biased and weird, but frankly iRacing's graphics are the best of the three. Just feels closest to what is 'right' and relatively real and not just high-fidelity strange sterility. And in general I've owned all three for years and years but just could never get into regularly playing ACC or rF2. Just nowhere ever near as smooth a process to really start playing (maybe not so much ACC, but it took me literal years on and off to get rF2 to actually work right with a G29..) as iR. Never could relate to the high praise given to either of the games.
Yeah it's pretty subjective really. Some people swear by ACC. For me it's rF2, with iRacing being second. For a sim there's something to be said for things just being stable and not smearing or ghosting in the way they do in ACC. An advantage iRacing has over rF2 is in how stable the shadows are. Though I'm not sure if my shadow flicker is from the way AMD does shadow dithering. I haven't ever had issue getting any of the games to work. But out of the three I hear more people struggle with rF2. iRacing can be finicky because there's a few ini tweaks needed that should really either be defaulted (like not taking full service on hitting pit box) or settable from the options.
I want to love rf2 so bad. I hear so many great things. But the graphics kill me. Do the graphics improve with the newer DLCs? I have no desire to reshade, I'd rather spend my time on the car, not graphics.
@@notatroll6809 No, I'd say the track details are all pretty comparable on the Studio 397 tracks. If you don't like Brands, the others are all similar. That said, I personally think the s397 tracks are second to none in sim racing. iRacing lags a fair way due to lack of 3D kerbs (both visually and in physics) and the fact the track is static without working lights or flags. Not even the start lights. ACC looks brilliant, but is maybe a little over the top. rF2 also has the off track areas which add to immersion for me. Is it the colour balance or something you don't like about rF2? Are you talking about how it looks with my settings, or how it looks for you?
@layingblacklines no it looks great on yours. I think you're spot on with the over saturated comment on rf2. I'm very used to ACC and the "natural light" look. So I think that throws me off with rf2. However, good physics and ffb can make that very easy to overlook, which is where it seems rf2 excels.
ACC shadows set low and you complain the shadow in the game? That's bullsh*t! Did you make a performance test to your PC or did you want to do a graphic comparison?
I have a 7800xt 58003xd acc,ac,ams2 irscing all run kn full or epic at 144 fps qith 34 ultrawide like yours but rf2 runs only with 60 fps in field near other cars and 70-90 alone dont know why so shit running rf2 has so much fps drops
I don't know, maybe settings. As you can tell from this video, I tend to turn them down a lot for better latency. Like I think special effects on Low and post processing Medium. Those can both hit performance hard. Also reflections. Doesn't seem like you're taking too much of a hit in traffic, but I often turn down car numbers. These days I try to lock at 150 fps and don't want that to dip on the grid. So on my potato computer I have visible cars set to 12. Or 20 (8) in iRacing, which is as low as it goes. iRacing I have shadows and mirrors off too.
maybe I'm weird but I like iR graphics the most, sound wise mix between ACC and Raceroom but rFactor have best driving feeling (best ffb and most detailed dlc tracks) ACC graphics are overhyped even on highest settings to me it looks kinda bad, too grainy and color balance is awful + too demanding on hardware for the offering and on lower settings there are huge problems with foliage and shadows because of this crappy engine rFactor graphics on newest tracks and cars looks really good but tarmac looks lifeless and also dashboards, especially the part where numbers are displayed looks bad compared to ACC and iR
Not weird at all. I like the way iRacing looks too. The lifeless tarmac is because on a fresh track in iRacing they still scribble some tyre marks on the track to make it look used. While in rF2 it is a fresh unmarked clean track. They all have dynamic track, though on rF2 and iRacing actually follow the exact car paths rather than a prebaked development. For dashboards I think iRacing leads all sims. Particularly in this car, which has probably the best dash in the game. But it just looks better in iRacing than the others I think.
😂😂 I mainly race in iRacing, but yeah I'm open to other sims too. I don't get why people get so tribal about sims. They're all pretty good these days. In this video I've upset many ACC fans because my settings are crap. I'm not trying to make any particular sim look good or bad here, just showing how they all run at the settings I use for online racing. Then on the iRacing forums people act as if I'm super biased against iRacing 🙄
ACC looked absolutely atrocious on your video man. It looks amazing maxed out on my pc, and I think the game looks and performs better on Nvidia hardware in general.
Yeah I've since turned settings up a fair bit and just accept I'm not going to be getting 130+ fps. Still probably the worst looking of the three in terms of the actual graphics. Though I think the detail of things is lowest in iRacing. Maybe ACC would run better on NV, I'm just showing the 3 games on the computer I have.
@@layingblacklines rFactor 2 looks old, as in long in the tooth. It is a sim from 2013 and it doesn't have the graphical bells and whistles of ACC at all. ACC from a graphical standpoint is multiple generations ahead. The physics of both depend on the person's taste though. rFactor 2 looks good when compared to iRacing in some ways, but ACC maxed on a good computer is miles ahead, and as I said it has much more up to date standards in terms of graphics. ACC just looks better if you can run it properly being a much newer title.
@@ZuneGuy1118 I've started using FSR set to Ultra in ACC to let me get higher graphics settings. It's still the worst looking and worst performing of the three. Most of the settings are at high too. Though I think it's subjective in many ways because the way things blur and pop in in motion is something I find distracting. Even watching people's streams with higher settings I don't think it looks better. Must be subjective though as loads of people prefer ACC and there's been a heap of downvotes on this post from people who like ACC. I do like the physics in ACC though. Love racing it in LFM too as I can always get a packed grid and people are fast and clean (compared to iRacing). I think it may have the best FFB, even if not the best physics. It's very smooth and I can run my VRS base without any damping and not have to worry about oscillations. Just feels very natural to me.
@@layingblacklines Yeah, I don't think the game looks or performs any good with AMD GPUs. You using FSR is part of the problem and you aren't going to see it looking any better because FSR is notorius for having good performance at the cost of dreadful image quality. Even XESS is better than FSR man and DLSS runs circles around both.
Its your settings on acc, shadows livhting snd more competely change the game. It has the most detail of any out. But i will give it to iracing snd rfacotr that the road textures really add to it. But acc cannot be beaten in the graphics department and you cant do a comparison then say somrthing doesnt look good when you sre turning things like shadows on low or off. I mean shadows lighting snd more are what create the atmosphere snd seprrstion between objects. You are ruining the game not running them. Iracing and rfacotr were designed around 1080p. They will look great there. Acc was designed for 4k but looks great in 1440p also. If you dont hsve a rig powerful enough to actually utilize the settinfs then you shouldnt be doing graphics comparisons. You are technically making a massive crutch for the most advanced sim racing game in the graphics department. Now i mesn advanced in graphics guys not the feel or physics thats just preference. Ive got to say stick to physic comparisons or something like thay. You cant do these its clear you have to reeuce things to much. The fact you do have to on acc so much shpuld tell you how demanding the graphics are which should also tell you how good it can look with evetyhting up. The issue with that is if you end up running at like sub 30fps it wont look good anyways lol. I tested acc on 60fps with 60hz then 120fps on 120hz the difference in image quality and crispness was staggering. So its clear if you do reduce settings you at least need high frames to make up for it.
On a serious note. ACC - fake resolution FSR (upscaling) over details, that could be insane - th-cam.com/video/eXf0fNmNNgQ/w-d-xo.html rF2 - launcher with re-shader th-cam.com/video/YktHwvgMV1w/w-d-xo.html AMS2 - th-cam.com/video/Ud2uyfE4d9U/w-d-xo.html AC - th-cam.com/video/QrnjLMvhFJA/w-d-xo.html iR - th-cam.com/users/shortsXL7iYqw0GNk
this is bad comparsion. Because ACC have the best graphics of this three. Idk about r factor. But if u put correct ACC graphics settings it will be very huge. RF2 and especialy Iracing cant be better than ACC in graphics... so no... i dont believe in that video.
What are correct ACC graphics settings? With the settings I have this on it already has the lowest FPS. For me I want it at least 60 fps, especially as I can get 160 in rF2 and iRacing on my 165 Hz monitory. Above 120 fps is noticeable.
Car shadows disabled in acc - looks horrible! Why does 130 fps matter if it looks like shit? Iracing and Rf2 is rather similar, but ACC is far prettier than both and of course also more demanding. Honestly, I don't see the point of this video?
Yeah I can run shadows on high and turn up materials a little. But I'm trying to get it near as 165 fps as I can. I'd like it to be pretty, but having tried high refresh I'm hooked on that. Feels stuttery now at 60 fps. ACC could look far better, this is just comparing them all on the same computer while trying to get the same frames.
@@Incognito-vc9wj If I put it on higher graphics settings and it ran at 50-80 fps then people would say it's not a comparison because the others are running at 120+ fps. This is a graphics comparison with all of them running the settings I use for racing online.
RF2 all day. But all the latest official tracks are best in class tbh.
I think any of the s397 tracks are the benchmark really.
rFactor 2 ✌
I don't think this is a good comparison when some settings are not maxed out, this is not an FPS test.
rfactor 2 ❤❤
How to compare limiting basic details of the game such as shadow? The Porsche at the beginning is without shadow.
it seems like the car is floating in the air in acc, it's because you turned off the shadow settings completely, it's not a correct comparison video
Yeah shadows were set to Low to try to get a similar framerate between all three. With my 5600 and 6700XT it is usually the GPU which is the limiting factor.
@@layingblacklinesThe entire point of this video, per the title, was to compare GRAPHICS... but you reduced graphics on more demanding games within the comparison to make the framerate equal and therefore make otherwise visually pleasant racing sims look like complete crap 🤦🏼♂️
@@YTB_JSNFARRELL Yeah maybe it's not for everyone, but for me framerate is most important for sims. Low input lag and smoothness is most important for me. So this is a comparison of what all the games look like when they feel smooth. I could max out ACC but it would only run around 60 fps and be like a slideshow.
@@layingblacklinesEntão mude o título do vídeo. Você está errado.
@@ppcoser Ok
RF2 sounds like they had a budget of 3 dollars for the audio.
Put ACC on reasonable graphic settings and try again.
Yeah I might do that. I don't think I'll get the same FPS, but would be interesting to see the difference in performance when it's looking more comparable to the other two.
rF2 is amazing
You set ACC on LOW and you are compering the graphics. I barely recognized the game. Cars are floating. Jesus christ.
Yeah shadows on low. It's not the best demonstration of how good ACC can look. It's just how my game looks on my computer when trying to run at high refresh rates. I will try to tweak my settings to have shadows on high and turn something else down instead. But this is more of a comparison of how each game looks given the same computing resources and targeting high framerates.
@@layingblacklines Try lowering the resolution to 1920x1080p. You will probs be able to max out all other settings and get more frames than in this video.
As much as I love rFactor 2, I have to ask, why did you leave the shadows set to low for ACC? Comparing the graphics and not having the max detail and effects set is kind of sucks.
I just had the three sims as I run them for online racing. Even with the lower settings ACC had the lowest framerate. It's possible to make it look better than I had it, but I'd have to upgrade my computer if I wanted it to run at similar fps to rF2 and iRacing. There's been many complaints that I did that, but honestly when you are comparing the games you tend to have the same computer for each one don't you. So given X computing power, this is how they all look and run.
@@layingblacklines So when the new Assetto Corsa or LeMans Ultimate comes out, you're going to set your details to low and then make a video saying that both titles look tragic...? :))
@@alexandrmacek it's not a marketing piece. Just a comparison how they all run on the same hardware. That's why I had the frame counter and usage charts up there. CPUs around 5600 pace are common. GPUs around 6700XT pace are common. Single screen 1440p is middle of the road. And many want to race at 100+ fps. So it's just a comparison of how they all look and perform on average hardware.
I really doubt LMU will look terrible. Probably a small step up from rF2, with a small performance hit. ACC can look beautiful, but it's probably the least efficient in that you need a step up in hardware for it to even match the other two. Still plenty good to race though. I have no problems with the graphics in ACC. Just doesn't look as good as AC I don't think.
@@layingblacklines The problem with your video is that it doesn't compare the graphics of the games, as you state in the title, but the performance of your PC. That's why the video is misleading.
Plus I don't know anyone who wants to play with the low setting in the game. From that perspective, the informational value of the video is zero.
It's also interesting in that I'm driving on similar hardware (Ryzen 5600 + RX 6600 XT) and in ACC, FPS are mostly in the 80-110 range during races. This is all with the graphics set to HIGH or EPIC, 2560x1080 resolution. And I haven't even tried FSR.. :)
@@alexandrmacekAre you able to try running at 3440x1440 resolution at Brands Hatch with a few AI? Here I'm getting about 120 fps. Which is around the point where any more fps gets harder to tell the difference to me. So like an ideal minimum for me. Though obviously you can still play down to 70 fps. It just feels like a slideshow though when you are used to higher frame rates. I prefer FSR to when I used DLSS on an NVidia card, but still prefer not to use it if possible. My current settings do have higher shadow settings now because I don't race online with ACC much any more.
iRacing have such weight and feel to it like no other sim. You can see it in this video too.
great work
Thanks 👍
what's the best racing sim if your not of fan of multiplayer games but want to do career modes and AI racing ? I have got GT7 on ps5 and the PSVR2 but also have the Logitech pro wheel with it as picked one up cheap that was used. I just got a new PC and have been dabbling with asset Comp and the new Forza motorsport, which feel terrible in every aspect to me, the graphics feels off, the wheel feels off, the Fram rate is all over the place.
Automobilista 2
AMS2 probs has the best AI in the world of sim racing
Rfactor2, acc then Iracing. Headlights and lighting, generally speaking in iracing are immersion breaking for me.
rF2 is king
bro....u put 4k res on ACC but puy a lot of settings on low/mid...none-sense against rf2
Woah, idk man, I'm running ACC @ 3k with Max settings and the game looks Gorgeous!! I don't think its fair to judge a games visuals with low settings.
You can remove the iracing water marc in the settings i think
Ah really? I'm going to have a root around and see if I can find it. Only thing more cheesy than the watermark on replays is hearing the American commentators at Jerez talking about iRacing.
I may be a little biased and weird, but frankly iRacing's graphics are the best of the three. Just feels closest to what is 'right' and relatively real and not just high-fidelity strange sterility. And in general I've owned all three for years and years but just could never get into regularly playing ACC or rF2. Just nowhere ever near as smooth a process to really start playing (maybe not so much ACC, but it took me literal years on and off to get rF2 to actually work right with a G29..) as iR. Never could relate to the high praise given to either of the games.
Live For Speed clears all of the above BTW :^ :^ :^ :^
Yeah it's pretty subjective really. Some people swear by ACC. For me it's rF2, with iRacing being second. For a sim there's something to be said for things just being stable and not smearing or ghosting in the way they do in ACC. An advantage iRacing has over rF2 is in how stable the shadows are. Though I'm not sure if my shadow flicker is from the way AMD does shadow dithering. I haven't ever had issue getting any of the games to work. But out of the three I hear more people struggle with rF2. iRacing can be finicky because there's a few ini tweaks needed that should really either be defaulted (like not taking full service on hitting pit box) or settable from the options.
I want to love rf2 so bad. I hear so many great things. But the graphics kill me. Do the graphics improve with the newer DLCs? I have no desire to reshade, I'd rather spend my time on the car, not graphics.
@@notatroll6809 No, I'd say the track details are all pretty comparable on the Studio 397 tracks. If you don't like Brands, the others are all similar. That said, I personally think the s397 tracks are second to none in sim racing. iRacing lags a fair way due to lack of 3D kerbs (both visually and in physics) and the fact the track is static without working lights or flags. Not even the start lights. ACC looks brilliant, but is maybe a little over the top. rF2 also has the off track areas which add to immersion for me.
Is it the colour balance or something you don't like about rF2? Are you talking about how it looks with my settings, or how it looks for you?
@layingblacklines no it looks great on yours. I think you're spot on with the over saturated comment on rf2. I'm very used to ACC and the "natural light" look. So I think that throws me off with rf2. However, good physics and ffb can make that very easy to overlook, which is where it seems rf2 excels.
RF2 the best sim and best look! Glad I made the move in 2019. Btw, I had all sims since 1988 and Grand Prix from the famous Geoff Crammond.
ACC shadows set low and you complain the shadow in the game? That's bullsh*t!
Did you make a performance test to your PC or did you want to do a graphic comparison?
ACC (0:13): the Porsche in the front looks so synthetic, I do not like that. Is that still so bad?
Rfactor2 😉
I have a 7800xt 58003xd acc,ac,ams2 irscing all run kn full or epic at 144 fps qith 34 ultrawide like yours but rf2 runs only with 60 fps in field near other cars and 70-90 alone dont know why so shit running rf2 has so much fps drops
I don't know, maybe settings. As you can tell from this video, I tend to turn them down a lot for better latency. Like I think special effects on Low and post processing Medium. Those can both hit performance hard. Also reflections. Doesn't seem like you're taking too much of a hit in traffic, but I often turn down car numbers. These days I try to lock at 150 fps and don't want that to dip on the grid. So on my potato computer I have visible cars set to 12. Or 20 (8) in iRacing, which is as low as it goes. iRacing I have shadows and mirrors off too.
maybe I'm weird but I like iR graphics the most, sound wise mix between ACC and Raceroom but rFactor have best driving feeling (best ffb and most detailed dlc tracks)
ACC graphics are overhyped even on highest settings to me it looks kinda bad, too grainy and color balance is awful + too demanding on hardware for the offering and on lower settings there are huge problems with foliage and shadows because of this crappy engine
rFactor graphics on newest tracks and cars looks really good but tarmac looks lifeless and also dashboards, especially the part where numbers are displayed looks bad compared to ACC and iR
Not weird at all. I like the way iRacing looks too. The lifeless tarmac is because on a fresh track in iRacing they still scribble some tyre marks on the track to make it look used. While in rF2 it is a fresh unmarked clean track. They all have dynamic track, though on rF2 and iRacing actually follow the exact car paths rather than a prebaked development.
For dashboards I think iRacing leads all sims. Particularly in this car, which has probably the best dash in the game. But it just looks better in iRacing than the others I think.
not really a graphics comparison when you have that big gap in the settings of each game...
No wonder you get so many potatoes on the iracing forum, you play other sims.
😂😂 I mainly race in iRacing, but yeah I'm open to other sims too. I don't get why people get so tribal about sims. They're all pretty good these days.
In this video I've upset many ACC fans because my settings are crap. I'm not trying to make any particular sim look good or bad here, just showing how they all run at the settings I use for online racing.
Then on the iRacing forums people act as if I'm super biased against iRacing 🙄
ACC looked absolutely atrocious on your video man. It looks amazing maxed out on my pc, and I think the game looks and performs better on Nvidia hardware in general.
Yeah I've since turned settings up a fair bit and just accept I'm not going to be getting 130+ fps. Still probably the worst looking of the three in terms of the actual graphics. Though I think the detail of things is lowest in iRacing. Maybe ACC would run better on NV, I'm just showing the 3 games on the computer I have.
@@layingblacklines rFactor 2 looks old, as in long in the tooth. It is a sim from 2013 and it doesn't have the graphical bells and whistles of ACC at all. ACC from a graphical standpoint is multiple generations ahead. The physics of both depend on the person's taste though. rFactor 2 looks good when compared to iRacing in some ways, but ACC maxed on a good computer is miles ahead, and as I said it has much more up to date standards in terms of graphics. ACC just looks better if you can run it properly being a much newer title.
@@ZuneGuy1118 I've started using FSR set to Ultra in ACC to let me get higher graphics settings. It's still the worst looking and worst performing of the three. Most of the settings are at high too. Though I think it's subjective in many ways because the way things blur and pop in in motion is something I find distracting. Even watching people's streams with higher settings I don't think it looks better. Must be subjective though as loads of people prefer ACC and there's been a heap of downvotes on this post from people who like ACC.
I do like the physics in ACC though. Love racing it in LFM too as I can always get a packed grid and people are fast and clean (compared to iRacing). I think it may have the best FFB, even if not the best physics. It's very smooth and I can run my VRS base without any damping and not have to worry about oscillations. Just feels very natural to me.
@@layingblacklines Yeah, I don't think the game looks or performs any good with AMD GPUs. You using FSR is part of the problem and you aren't going to see it looking any better because FSR is notorius for having good performance at the cost of dreadful image quality. Even XESS is better than FSR man and DLSS runs circles around both.
Physics wise, ACC is the worst out of these three.
ACC the cars look like they are floating along the track
Your acc setting need to be turned up , graphics shouldn’t look that bad
Bro you are comparing with low acc settings
Yeah and it's still getting the lowest fps. I love the FFB and general racing in ACC, but the graphics kill it for me.
The best simrace is Revs on Commodore 64 :-)
Its your settings on acc, shadows livhting snd more competely change the game. It has the most detail of any out. But i will give it to iracing snd rfacotr that the road textures really add to it. But acc cannot be beaten in the graphics department and you cant do a comparison then say somrthing doesnt look good when you sre turning things like shadows on low or off. I mean shadows lighting snd more are what create the atmosphere snd seprrstion between objects. You are ruining the game not running them. Iracing and rfacotr were designed around 1080p. They will look great there. Acc was designed for 4k but looks great in 1440p also. If you dont hsve a rig powerful enough to actually utilize the settinfs then you shouldnt be doing graphics comparisons. You are technically making a massive crutch for the most advanced sim racing game in the graphics department. Now i mesn advanced in graphics guys not the feel or physics thats just preference.
Ive got to say stick to physic comparisons or something like thay. You cant do these its clear you have to reeuce things to much. The fact you do have to on acc so much shpuld tell you how demanding the graphics are which should also tell you how good it can look with evetyhting up. The issue with that is if you end up running at like sub 30fps it wont look good anyways lol.
I tested acc on 60fps with 60hz then 120fps on 120hz the difference in image quality and crispness was staggering. So its clear if you do reduce settings you at least need high frames to make up for it.
ACC - scalable ; rF2 - 2h ini tweak ; iR - why?
AMS2 -click, AC - IDDQD
On a serious note.
ACC - fake resolution FSR (upscaling) over details, that could be insane - th-cam.com/video/eXf0fNmNNgQ/w-d-xo.html
rF2 - launcher with re-shader th-cam.com/video/YktHwvgMV1w/w-d-xo.html
AMS2 - th-cam.com/video/Ud2uyfE4d9U/w-d-xo.html
AC - th-cam.com/video/QrnjLMvhFJA/w-d-xo.html
iR - th-cam.com/users/shortsXL7iYqw0GNk
this is bad comparsion. Because ACC have the best graphics of this three. Idk about r factor. But if u put correct ACC graphics settings it will be very huge. RF2 and especialy Iracing cant be better than ACC in graphics... so no... i dont believe in that video.
What are correct ACC graphics settings? With the settings I have this on it already has the lowest FPS. For me I want it at least 60 fps, especially as I can get 160 in rF2 and iRacing on my 165 Hz monitory. Above 120 fps is noticeable.
Performance Comparison with low pc specs are not very usefull. You cannot see what is possible.......
Timewaste
Car shadows disabled in acc - looks horrible! Why does 130 fps matter if it looks like shit?
Iracing and Rf2 is rather similar, but ACC is far prettier than both and of course also more demanding. Honestly, I don't see the point of this video?
worst comparison ever, its a joke.
nono - for you is a joke
What do you mean? What did I do wrong?
IR, ACC, RF2 - to me its not even close. ACC and RF2 look like cartoons
Iracing looks like sepia - cinema - mode... It's not even close to other sims...
you losing lots of detail in acc, iv seen way better shadows and graphics on cars in acc on a gtx3060.
Yeah I can run shadows on high and turn up materials a little. But I'm trying to get it near as 165 fps as I can. I'd like it to be pretty, but having tried high refresh I'm hooked on that. Feels stuttery now at 60 fps. ACC could look far better, this is just comparing them all on the same computer while trying to get the same frames.
@@layingblacklines then it’s not really a graphics comparison.
@@Incognito-vc9wj If I put it on higher graphics settings and it ran at 50-80 fps then people would say it's not a comparison because the others are running at 120+ fps. This is a graphics comparison with all of them running the settings I use for racing online.