I have never said everything is rosy and fine - you're reading and accepting the nonsense that other people have written about me, or maybe it's easier to argue against me if you ignore the truth, and the valid points and make stuff up?
My position is that the good outweighs the bad, and that the best way forward is to be positive about the good things and try to be mature and respectful about the bad stuff like development speed.
The way I do that is my remembering that there are very good reasons for the problems. I suppose my experience as a developer makes it easier for me to accept the downsides instead of being an total **** about them.
You don't have to ignore any facts, just be pragmatic, mature, respectful... you know, stop thinking like a toddler.
To fix things that are broken takes work, complaining doesn't fix things. If the Community it broken, then the work to fix it has to come from within the community. If you want it to improve, then work towards that goal. Complaining repeatedly just adds to the problem.
No, I'm not missing the point, I'm disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong.
I don't have a pc, but likely will be getting one around the time of S3 - this old macbook is getting really annoying. My kids play LFS on their PC regularly, but I don't allow them online with it because there are so many a$$holes on the servers.
So yes, I am going to be bothered with it and will likely be paying for more than one licence upgrade. You will also see many old faces returning to LFS after the next major update. Maybe they will stay for a month, maybe more. either way, it doesn't justify the prevailing negative attitudes here in the forum, and it doesn't undermine my argument either.
Not really. in fact is was just another weak straw man argument attempting to defend a popular but untenable point of view.
Compromises are necessary... obviously this is true, but irrelevant.
It doesn't support his argument or weaken mine - it's a red herring.
And discussion is clearly happening, so that jibe was also bogus.
Of course design compromises are necessary - as with any engineering project. But I trust Scawen to make better choices about which compromises to make than me, you, or anyone else here. LFS is proof of his ability - I'll be happy to accept alternative opinions if they're backed up with some similar tangible proof of expertise.
It's not about Unicorn hunting, it's about respect where it's due and being mature enough to accept the approach of someone who knows way more than than us about how to build a great racing sim. Sure, he makes mistakes sometimes, every approach to software development has weaknesses, but in this case they are vastly outweighed by the strengths.
Last edited by col, .
Think about this in a bit more detail:
Take a real car at a real track where a significant number of laps have been driven in different conditions by expert drivers (e.g. scirocco/rockingham), and you can assume that the lap record has been driven at close to ideal conditions - where dirt, heat, weather, track surface variation, humidity etc. are all pretty close to optimum.
LFS without dynamic track conditions, weather and other details, should be producing times very close to this lap record, otherwise there is something wrong that needs fixing.
As these features are added to LFS average lap times should go up, but the lap records should still be very close to the times possible before the realism upgrades.
One could also argue that a driver in the real world should have an advantage due to better seat-of-the-pants feedback that's not available in a sim, and as a result should be able to beat the sim lap record. This effect should easily make up for any slight advantage the 'perfect conditions' of LFS give us.
eh?
Formula BMW, BF1, Raceabout, Scirocco and MRT5 are 'real'.
LX4, XRT & UF1000 are clones of real cars with the names changed.
Yes, dynamic track surface would be my priority if I was developing LFS.
However, Scawen will have an opinion about how much difference from reality is acceptable within his LFS 'philosophy'. His opinions about design priorities are what has made LFS so good. So why do so many people here think they know better?
The analogy is to help you understand what I think, not to make you agree.
LFS hasn't changed much really. Development has inevitably been slowing steadily since the start due to the rule of diminishing returns. The biggest change is the approach to the community, and that is as a reaction to the ridiculous attitude that has developed in the community as it has changed over the years - so many opinionated ego-maniacs who think they know better than the devs, and endlessly spout their 'wisdom' while making their endless demands and threats.
The reason seems clear to me.
Real cars at a real track in LFS will highlight any areas where the physics are not real enough. If times are way off real world times, then it's not good enough for release.
LFS is about simulation and realism. If you value content over realism, play something else. That goes for the guys who +1'd your post as well. You guys obviously don't get what LFS is about.
You're like a girl that goes out with a guy, then spends the whole time trying to change him into someone else
I expect that they were obliged by some sort of contractual agreement to have a version ready for use at the circuit in exchange for the rights to use the track in the game.
Anyway, fine details and technical subtleties aren't as important for a simulator at an event compared to a public LFS release where people can spend hundreds of hours honing lines and setups in their own homes. Weaknesses in the physics would not be so obvious.
You're not 'suggesting' it, you're beating it to death, and definitely not in a "calm and respectful fashion" either.
Right on bro!!!
Mind you, I really think you could show a little more ambition, creativity and effort with your LFS hate posts!
e.g. technically, seen as how I'm made of atoms created at the start of the universe, i've been waiting for nearly 14 billion years for the Scirocco and Rockingham - come on Scawen, surely 13.75 (± 0.11) billion years is long enough?
(my emphasis)
You either didn't read my post, didn't understand it, or are willfully misrepresenting it. Go read it again, the point is valid.
(btw, anyone who claims 250% of anything loses 100% of their credibility)
Why can you assume that?
We are looking at a study aiming to show differences between different cultures. To make an unfounded assumption that they all the same in another respect just to defend a poorly worded survey question is an obvious error.
Anyway, my point is not that there are people who know they are racist but claim not to be. It is that there are people who are racist, but honestly believe that they are not. This is likely to be influenced by social norms, so one would expect there to be different percentages of these people in different cultures where racist behaviour is more acceptable or unacceptable in those cultures. This effect would make results obtained by the original survey question unreliable.
While it pains me to say it, Blue Flame does have a valid point.
The question in this survey can only tell us which populations have more or fewer people who think that they are racist.
It is not uncommon for people who are racist to believe that they are not racist, and that what we might perceive as racist behaviour is normal, acceptable and completely harmless.
He sure is - just looked at some of his other posts.
He's obviously got a chip on his shoulder about something.
Unfortunately, he seems unable to express any coherent explanation as to exactly what his problem is
I disagree. I think that Scawens response has been pragmatic and mature.
If he did what you are suggesting, he will be left with a heap of work that stops him from working on the tyre physics, AND he might end up with a war against some angry hacker. Everybody loses.
Instead he is attempting to make the best of the situation by building a dialog with the hacker(s) and attempting to work with them so they can help fix LFS. That way less of his time is used up finding obscure netcode bugs and they can have some constructive input in the process.
Everybody wins.
Ive noticed this happening quite often with the forum over the last few months. Every now and then, it's not there - always comes back in a minute or two. I just assumed it was a problem with my ISP... DNS issues or something... I've not been racing for a while, so only noticed with the forum.
There are two main reasons why game engines such as quake and unreal have their own scripting. One is to allow level development to be streamlined - placement and control of NPC's and modifiable environment can be scripted by level designers who don't need or want access to the raw c++.
The other is to enable larger teams to work on games more efficiently - fewer problems with version control if individual level designers can script their work without needing access to the main code base.
Neither of these things apply to LFS where there is no story line, so no scripted NPC's are required, and the 'levels' are static. Not to mention the fact that there is only one programmer.
For LFS the devs will have coded their own development tools for sure, but I imagine these will be: track modelling tool, car modelling tool, and multiple small scale tools to aid in the development of physics, ai etc.
None of these tools will be in a 'release' state, as they will be updated as and when required for any number of reasons.
Scawen has already released fantastic community SDK tools years ago that allow the community amazing flexibility in what they can do with LFS. In-sim and out-sim make much more sense in the context of a racing sim than a quake style scripting system would. It's not Scawens fault that all the community has managed recently with this tech is endless copycat cruise server systems.
Lol. Pot calling the kettle black there for sure.
Devs have always said they make LFS because they want to.
In terms of whether we get a new LFS update and how long it takes, I reckon that the devs motivation is much more important than the communities motivation.
Agreed, a progress report is useless if there's no progress to report.
But if that's your view, then it's contradictory of you to then complain about non-communication. If there's nothing to report, how can they 'communicate' without releasing the same report multiple times ?
It seems like they're damned if they do and damned if they don't - now there's a motivation killer if every I've seen one.
More personal attacks?
Can't you disagree with someone without being abusive?.
No I don't think it would be out of order, and I never have. You attempted to falsely assign that point of view to me in your post (#51) - that's your 'straw man' right there.
That's pathetic - go and find any posts of mine where I say I don't want updates, or S3 and post links here. Otherwise, stop making false claims.
I'm arguing because I DO want S3, updates and progress reports.
It's the people who make endless demands and constantly criticise the devs that caused the progress reports to dry up.
I also think that all the negativity towards Scawen and his development approach can only reduce his motivation, making S3 take longer.
...mind you, If you actually read my posts instead of making false claims about them, you would know that already right? so you probably didn't read this far...
I don't think anyone here sees that as a big deal. It's just DeKo's desperate straw man argument.
There's no more visceral experience in gaming than a good race in LFS 
Cool, if they made a fortune that's great, they deserve to IMO. £24 for LFS is the most fun per £ that I've ever got from a game, by far. Where did you find out how much they made?
If they tricked you out of your money with false promises, you should get in touch with trading standards, they will make sure you get a full refund - assuming your allegations are legitimate.
The issue here isn't that they provided a product that isn't completed or is lacking. They provided an excellent product that was worth way more than we were asked to pay.
The issue here is that people feel that because they bought a great game that was excellent value, somehow, they are owed something by the devs, and are demanding information about some future product that may never happen, or it may who knows. That's not business and management 101.
I could understand it if they had sold loads of pre-order licences for S3 based on a promised and missed release date - then all this would be justified.
Business and management 101 states that Scavier should have released the same basic game each year with shitty physics, slightly changed content, full of bugs, and spent most of their resources on obtaining licenses for real world tracks and cars. Then charged full price for it each time, and removed support for each 'new' game after a year or so.
I'm glad they chose a different path to follow.
(EDIT: what's happening on this forum isn't industrial or organizational psychology, it's just personal psychology within a group/social context. The concept of positive reinforcement is entirely appropriate)
Werd claimed that if Scawen answered the nagging, then the nagging would stop. That is obviously not the case.
When Scawen gives out information, people naturally want more information, and there are loads of questions and demands because he's just been active on the forum - everyone thinks he's listening.
If he doesn't then take even more time out to answer these new questions, they get all agressive on his ass for not communicating, If he does answer them, then there will be even more questions and demands.
I think it got to the point years ago when Scawen decided that this process was causing more problems than it was solving for the dev team, so they changed their approach. It's sad really, but totally understandable IMO.
Last edited by col, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG