rF2 vs. iRacing vs. Reality – Lime Rock Comparison

DigiProst has put together a very interesting comparison video, showing the Skip Barber at Lime Rock in two simulations.

The entry level open wheeler is a very popular car in both rFactor 2 and iRacing but which simulation does it better?

You can check that out in the video below as both titles go head to head with real-life footage of the Skippy.

GTOmegaRacing.com

  • http://www.mikecantwell.com/ Mike Cantwell

    I like the RF2 version. Iracing has some bits missing like the track alternatives.

    • marcel

      the track alternatives weren’t there when iRacing released the track. (and they aren’t any good anyway)

      • Anonymous

        Depends which cars you like. The old chicane is pretty useless and dangerous. If you race higher speed cars the new uphill chicane keeps the cars on the ground.

        Even the world challenge GT cars got airborne on the uphill when they visited this year.

  • FormulaLes

    Looks like a fair bit of work has been done since iRacing scanned the circuit. Maybe one day they’ll go back and rescan it. I like the idea that in the future we will have pretty accurate 3d models of different circuits around the world, at different stages of their life. A great way to preserve history. Oran Park is a great example. Gone forever in real life, but here forever virtually because it was laser scanned before being replaced with a housing estate.

    • Marc Collins

      The track was completely resurfaced and curbs changed, so it’s a comparison of rF2 vs. reality and iRacing versus something no longer there that we’ll have to imagine.

      • Anonymous

        Would love to see two reality shots, from before and after the repave, so we have 1:1 comparison for both.

    • Pvt Stash

      Agree totally Les, the more tracks we get scanned the better. We go to great lengths to preserve other historical items so a bit of scanning doesn’t seem like too much to keep memories alive. R.I.P Oran.

  • Anonymous

    I see the suspension on the iRacing is working just as hard as the real life version, where the rF2 car looks to be driving on a much smoother surface.

    • D3

      iRacing is using an older track surface, which certainly looks a lot bumpier. The real vid at the top though to me looks pretty close to the rF2 vid, certainly no way near the movement of the iRacing vid at least.
      Keeping in mind that the camera in the real footage has a bit of movement in it, unlike both game footage vids.

    • Francesco Kasta

      What D3 said.

    • Tim Wheatley

      The track was repaved – and is smooth – since 2008. iRacing track was scanned long before that.

    • Mrslfrsl

      I see the driver inputs in rf2 are just as in the real live version, where the iRacing steering looks to be much smoother with less corrections. ;)

  • gt3rsr

    This is the first time when I really like the color settings of rF2.

  • myvracelog

    Real life video was done in the winter. So the dull grey, tinted earthylook would make it look more like the rf2 vid. Plus what tim said below, the resurfacing also makes it ”look” closer to rf2’s version. Until you look for more details.

    I have been track volunteer for Alms and GA series at lrp. So Ive been there countless times in person, also growing up would visit near there for my summers and go to races. Too many times to count.

    Also have raced the track in several different games.

    No game comes closer to the real thing then IR’s version, especially the detail in the pits and the building detail makes you feel like your really there if you really ever sat in a real car in the pits at this track i’t is mind-blowing how real it feels.

    I am thankful that the track is available in such great versions in different games.
    But as far as feeling real IR version by far is the best.

  • Anonymous

    .

  • Anonymous

    What’s this obsession with looking like reality? It’s a video game FFS!

    • http://display.vracing.pl Gniewko Ostrowski

      well, it’s supposed to be a simulator, not video game, hope you understand the difference.

      • Anonymous

        Fair enough,

  • Hurdy Hurdy

    Why is it the scenery in rF2 doesn’t cast any shadow, apart from the bridges?

    Also iRacing clip scores a bonus point as the driver had the correct colour gloves on (same as IRL), lol.

  • Anonymous

    It may just be me but the pit buildings placement / proportions seem a lot more accurate in iracing than rf2.
    I haven’t tried the iracing version though, so i do not know precisely and it’s hard to see from the video that is just a lap rather than a drive round of the infield.

    The most amusing and ironic part is, possibly the biggest difference is the distant scenery, where iracing is a lot better.
    This is ironic because this is not actually something that laser-scanning gives iracing an advantage – the hills in the background aren’t laser scanned.
    In fact, they are so far away that GIS elevation data would be sufficient!
    So what i don’t understand is why ISI didn’t bother to get some free GIS data and use it for their distant scenery, so that the hills match up? Cos i think it would probably have been rather easy to generate and certainly would have made the distant surroundings feel more real and ‘alive’.

    Also, the lack of variation in those distant hills in the RF2 version kind of means you are less likely to have your bearings when travelling around, as there are less reference points because it is all rather uniform. Obviously not as important as close trackside objects for braking markers, but still…

    What do other people think? :)

    • Anonymous

      lol why the hate? At least reply if you don’t agree, i could learn something!

    • Anonymous

      If u depend on distant hills to find a quick way around a circuit u should stop racing and go hiking.

      • Anonymous

        Well of course i don’t.
        I just mean it’s some GIS elevation data you can get for free, so why not at least use it? :) The variance adds to the atmosphere and feeling that you are in a “natural environment” if nothing else.

      • Anonymous

        If you don’t use all the surroundings of the circuit as reference markers, you will always be at a disadvantage. Elevated markers are especially helpful when closely following another car that blocks your view of your usual markers.

      • Anonymous

        He is talking about distant hills not the surroundings. Sorry but even if u got a car in front of u u can still see close surroundings so that would be the best reference.

      • Anonymous

        Depends, I sometimes use hills in the distance as a reference by when the appear/disappear behind nearby objects. Everything can be a reference marker, depends how creative you are.

  • Anonymous

    comparing a laser scanned thing n not a laser scanned thing is stupid

  • traind

    They both look great to me. The significant difference besides the bumps seems to be the outside left curbing right before the downhill. I am sure iRacing has it very accurately to what it was in 2008 but the curbing/runoff is now much smaller than iRacing’s which allows you to go out on it quite significantly. Perhaps the track is wider there now… I’m not sure.

Back to top