Yep, I guess the only viable option for small sim developers (other than unlicenced community mods) is to do some sort of deal to provide a custom version of the game for the track owners to use at events as some sort of barter/exchange.
Another problem that may already exist, but if not, will surely happen soon is that console developers will buy exclusive rights to certain tracks - in that case it wouldn't matter if you could get the cash together...
How do YOU know what they have or have not been working on?
let's have some evidence.
How do YOU know what they have or have not been working on? let's have some evidence.
...
Yes people fail to see the big picture, but what annoys me is that they continue to refuse to see it even when it is explained over and over again. (Although there seem to be many times more people who do understand and are willing to be patient than there are complaining about the dev process or the devs workrate)
What hype did the Devs present about S2 alpha that S2 alpha has not lived up to ?
lol we get loads of updates, and compatible patches - Scawen has explained that he is working on non-compatible code but that when he codes something that can be added to a compatible test patch he does so... He has also mentioned that Eric is working on content for future non-compatible versions.
I'm sure Eric is working hard, and I think your insinuations are totally out of order - Anyway, why should they change the way they work to suit you ? They are developing a very good piece of software - it's already the best available, why would they change anything in their approach... if it aint broke, don't fix it...
(and if you think it is broke, you certainly havn't provided any justification for that belief or proof to back it up)
Col
more OT dribblings from a croaky old timer
No worries, I just know that the demographic for sim racing is somewhat different.
And I know many 'elders' who game - the thing is that they are too intelligent to waste their money buying the same game over and over again with slightly different content... so the corporations concentrate on the kids and the gfx card geeks
And it seems that even when folks do grow out of mainstream games, they don't grow out of sim racing... in fact, I would imagine that many gamers are more likely to find sim racing attractive as they get older and start to see things differently and appreciate the depth and value of a really good sim as opposed to the glitz and immediacy of a well produced arcade game.
Personally the only thing outside of Sim Racing that really gets me interested in the gaming world is what Nintendo does - they seem to be the only company that has anything of real value to offer gaming in the long term. They are the only folks willing to take chances and push the envelope.
cheers, and no hard feelings
Col
Maybe you didn't notice but XCNuse brought the issue of age into this discussion himself - he seemed to be implying that because he is 18 and the other guy he was disagreeing with is 36 that his and his friends opinions are more valid/important with respect to LFS (and games in general) and its development strategy.... seemed like an ignorant jibe to me
I just have a mental picture of the poor kid running away from his PC crying after typing that....
Which version of LFS are you running ?
The master server was moved recently, and if you missed that and didn't auto update in time, maybe you need to download an update manually ?
Assuming this is the problem, there was also a thread recently with instructions on how to edit your system to point to the new master server.... but you shouldn't need to do that..
Or if you can find a woman, blame her.... right Becky ?
Sounds about right...(and thats only becuase the average age of the DorIFTOrz is dragging it down :razz
I did, I thought... hmmm he's basically still a kid, I should cut him some slack now that I understand why he has no awareness of subtlety or quality and no taste.
90% of gamers have no interes in Sims - they want games that are called sims but where you can go round a 90º turn at 100 mph without lifting, let alone braking (ok so thats an exaggeration, but you get my point I'm sure). Remember when GPL came out.. oh of course, you were a bit young then... it had the best graphics of any driving game and the best sound, it was miles better than everything else available, but it was a commercial flop for two reasons:
#1 more than 90% of gamers thought it was way to difficult.
#2 you needed a cutting edge system to get a decent frame rate.
Combine the two and you're talking about probably fewer than 10% of gamers with a cutting edge system... not looking good is it.
So just to be clear - what 90% of the gaming community wants is not relevant to the success of LFS.
Mind you my belief is that 90% of the gaming community would choose a new original and fun game over the same old same old any day of the week... remember when tetris came out ? oops of course not you're to young... did it have cutting edge graphics ? great sound? I think not.. HUGE WORLDWIDE SUCCESS ? sure of course, because it had what > 90% of gamers want and that is a great original concept and addictive gameplay... not wanky graphics effects...
(Remember the first of the Zelda games ? oh wait, you probably don't...
what about the massive success of some text adventure games.. no you won't remember those...)
The difference now is not so much that the gamers don't value original addictive concepts over graphics - it's that the game corporations are not willing to provide any new original ideas, so the only way for a game to distinguish itself is by being a bit glossier than the last one... marketing pushes this, and kids with no sense of history, taste or quality buy into it hook line and sinker... makes me sad
Col
---------~~◄Ξ►3 >º ><
Hmm, I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have explained I do think that LFS has got very good graphics.... understated, subtle, low/medium poly, very high quality.
expanding your analogy:
One guy might want his wife to dress up in stockings and suspenders with fishnets and heavy makeup - like a cheap whore.
... while another may like his wife to dress in stylish sophisticated clothes (and under garments
that suit her and make her feel good.(btw, like Boris, I also trained as an artist)
Ah, so more polys == better models fewer polys == crap models
RIIIIGHT, I guess you don't really get the arguement for quality over quantity
So why are effects required for something to look 'real' or 'good' ?
You need to justify your claims that LFS looks crap with a little more than just a poly count !
C'mon lets hear in a bit more detail what it is thats wrong with how it looks - and I don't mean what tech it uses or how many polys it uses - thats not really very important - what is it about the balance of colours or the aesthetics of the car shapes...
To me it seems that in LFS all the objects in my view at any time seem to sit correctly together - they look like they are all part of the same environment. Very few games achieve this to the same level and it has nothing to do with Poly count and fancy custom shader coding. It has to do with an eye for subtlety, a desire for quality and a high level of aesthetic maturity.
You can compare LFS to a C64 if you want - doesn't mean they are the same - to suggest that the graphics in LFS are technically at the same level as N64 games is ridiculous - that said, I would still play LFS more than any other driving game even if it did have N64 graphics !
Not to me - In my opinion, LFS looks very good. It doesn't have any of the annoying glossy synthetically shiny crap that so many other games do and I find that refreshing.
I agree that the sound needs work, but I would prefer that dev time was not spent on the graphics when so many other things that are more important to sim racing need attention.
My guess is that you are a 'gamer'. In mainstream gaming where there is a very large market, and a lot of customers who want new games to show off their (s)wanky new gfx cards games do need to sport all the fancy glittery bells an whistles.
In the Sim world things are a little different - the potential user base is much smaller, so you cannot afford to lose potential users by demanding a high spec system. Many of the users fall into a different demographic than mainstream gamers - I'm sure there are many LFS racers who don't do much 'gaming' - these folks don't want to have to spend hundreds every year upgrading their PC just to play LFS - which was just fine in the graphics department anyway...
Not miracles but a clear vision, hard work and skill. Remember these guys are industry veterans, they know about the problems that large teams cause so they chose to keep it small scale, they also chose an game genre where quality wins out. (You should go and read up on the team dynamics of software development
)Of course there is the reality that LFS IS SUCCESSFUL despite the fact that it has employed none of the marketing that its competitors use and it eschews cutting edge eye candy in favour of quality simulation. This success suggests that they have got the balance right and that changing things would be a mistake - maybe they understand their project, their users and their potential market better than you do
I don't believe for a second that there is any complacency in the dev team - these guys aren't just doing this for fun, they are doing it to feed, house and cloth their families... they are committed to their project and this community and work very hard.
What some of you seem to be missing is an understanding of software development and creative endevour in general...
When a project is new, a very small effort generates a large percievable change. As things develop, you need more work for a smaller percieved improvement.
As LFS matures, every update needs more work than the last for it to create an 'improvement' rather than just a change. As The simulation gets closer to what it is trying to simulate, it gets harder to notice the improvements, but at the same time it is much more difficult to implement those improvements.
I suppose its a little like learning a new car/track combo - at first your times drop quickly and significantly, but the closer you get to the world record, the more work you need to put in in order to see any improvement.... the final 0.5 of a second down to the world record will take way more time and effort than all the rest...
I guess you guys just need to take a break from LFS ?
Come back in a few months, and you might see it a little differently
That is of course unless you are one of those types who have bought into the 'gotta get the latest video card' mentality where if a game doesn't look better on your new card than it did on your last one then its a crap game
(BTW, I also want to see improvements, new features, improved diff, tyre model, aero etc. However I don't expect to see them until they are ready, and I know they will be ready as soon as they can be and that the devs are working harder than I would want them to towards that goal.)
Wow, so much negativity in this thread !
Don't know a good thing when you see it?
Glass always half empty?
LFS is the best but it sucks because the dev process is too slow ???
LFS is the best because of the dev process !
If a more traditional dev process was used, LFS would be finished and finished with by now - yet another second rate play for a few weeks then bin it video game.
My guess is that rFactor was chosen by Intel because the rFactor producers are more flexible and willing to compromise in order to help out Intel... Scavier would not be willing to allow Intel to have any influence over their plans for the future development of LFS, so the likes of Intel will steer clear if they have an alternative. It's nothing to do with fantasy tracks or content, rather it is to do with politics (with a small 'p') and philosophy.
Another way to put this is:
Scavier are not willing to kiss corporate ass... I guess rFactor don't mind the taste as much
Don't know a good thing when you see it?
Glass always half empty?
LFS is the best but it sucks because the dev process is too slow ???
LFS is the best because of the dev process !
If a more traditional dev process was used, LFS would be finished and finished with by now - yet another second rate play for a few weeks then bin it video game.
My guess is that rFactor was chosen by Intel because the rFactor producers are more flexible and willing to compromise in order to help out Intel... Scavier would not be willing to allow Intel to have any influence over their plans for the future development of LFS, so the likes of Intel will steer clear if they have an alternative. It's nothing to do with fantasy tracks or content, rather it is to do with politics (with a small 'p') and philosophy.
Another way to put this is:
Scavier are not willing to kiss corporate ass... I guess rFactor don't mind the taste as much
YES! the Bogeyman.... and he told me it was the Leprechauns that did it !
or what about:
Do you like LFS's exclusivity?
* No, LFS should be accessible for everyone
* Yes, because I am a crap driver and don't want extra competition
* I am way too stupid to care
Do you like LFS's exclusivity?
* No, LFS should be accessible for everyone
* Yes, because I am a crap driver and don't want extra competition
* I am way too stupid to care
So you mean if it was worded:
Do you like LFS's Accessibility ?
* Yes, I like its level of accessibility
* No, I wish fewer people would play it
* It doesn't matter to me
the results might be different ?
surely not !
I agree completely.
LFS is inclusive not exclusive.
If it cost £5000.00...
or required a motion simulator seat...
or you needed at least one world record before you could play online...
or a supercomputer was required as minimum spec to run it...
or you had to be at least 15th in line to the throne...
That would make it exclusive...
As it is, all you need is a basic PC and a basic internet connection...
The community is somewhat exclusive (you need to shell out £24 for an S2 licence... WOW)... so its about as exclusive as any downloadable game ?
I like that level of exclusivity
blue sky thinking?
more like purple polkadot....
I guess the big question is not 'would it be cool?', but 'can it be done?'
three main resources to consider
time, money, expertise
If there is enough expertise in the community, do those experts have the time to at least do some detailed resource analysis?
work out:
how many man hours (engineer, mechanic, designer etc...) will be required (multiply by 3)...
how much money will be needed (multiply by 3)...
at least then we will know how crazy an idea this is
I guess folks who don't live in the 'base' country could go on a 'Build a LFS race car'' holiday... so with a couple of dedicated skilled permanent project leaders and a steady trickle of willing workers...
of course then there's travel expenses etc. to deal with...
If it worked, it would surely get some media coverage...
complete madness though
more like purple polkadot....
I guess the big question is not 'would it be cool?', but 'can it be done?'
three main resources to consider
time, money, expertise
If there is enough expertise in the community, do those experts have the time to at least do some detailed resource analysis?
work out:
how many man hours (engineer, mechanic, designer etc...) will be required (multiply by 3)...
how much money will be needed (multiply by 3)...
at least then we will know how crazy an idea this is
I guess folks who don't live in the 'base' country could go on a 'Build a LFS race car'' holiday... so with a couple of dedicated skilled permanent project leaders and a steady trickle of willing workers...
of course then there's travel expenses etc. to deal with...
If it worked, it would surely get some media coverage...
complete madness though
fix the Diff
proper race starts, jump starts etc.
tyre temps
realistic engine & gearbox damage
better aero
better wind/weather that stays on except in hotlap mode !
(and shove a potato up the fxo exhaust)
proper race starts, jump starts etc.
tyre temps
realistic engine & gearbox damage
better aero
better wind/weather that stays on except in hotlap mode !
(and shove a potato up the fxo exhaust)
Thats probably why LFS gets the cold shoulder from the other sim racing communities - for introducing the unwashed masses and their FPS attitude to the refined and delicate world of sim racing
What you say is partly true, but you have to understand that there is more than one way to use the data.
If your simulation works by storing loads of data for all normal contitions, then reading from that data as those conditions arise, any time an unusual contition arises that you don't have accurate detailed data for, you will have to fudge it, and it will seem awkward and unrealistic to the user....
The more data you have, the better it gets, but you will never have enough data for every eventuality..
The other approach is to use the data as a development tool... you look at the data, then design a mathematical model... you then run the model using the same conditions that generated the data... you look at the output of the model and compare it to the original data... you tweak the model... and repeat the process each time bringing the output of your model closer to the real data.
The beauty of this approach is that if your model workd for situations that are 'known' it is very likely that it will also work for situations for which you have no detailed accurate data.
Any time more data becomes available that highlights flaws in your model, you can repeat the iterative tweaking and testing of your model in order to bring its output closer to the 'output' from reality.
This second way is more difficult and requires a deeper more creative use of maths and physics, but ultimately it will produce a more natural feel because the simulated environment is always true to itself.
I'll leave it to you to work out which sim uses which approach
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG