Hi everyone !

Each of you knows that team Scavier stated a while ago that community content "if allowed, won't be there until S3". As time flows by, Scavier must know more and more that community content will be in an undertermined future one of the main feature for LFS's survival.
Indeed, through opinions shared on this forum concerning the rate of progress, I am sure that the team knows that to keep up the pace with a broader competition (iRacing, rFactor, nKPro...) they will have either to increase the number of programmers, modellers or allow our large community to include 'homemade' contents.

Since the tripartite organization, really supported by team Scavier, is an organization pattern which purposes and outputs are understandable and efficient (less people so a better quality control, which is the main aspect of Live For Speed), there are two alternatives left : allow independent teams to work on sub-projects (which I doubt will be used again since the failure of the RallyPack project) or allow users to create personal content, via editors provided by the Scavier team itself.

The point of this thread is not to weighs the pros and cons of having a community edition system (please check the thread : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=52896). The point of this thread is to submit different ways an editor system could be implemented while respecting the general idea of what Live For Speed is.
(Please keep this in mind as I don't want this topic to be a war between pro and anti editors points of view, and I will ask the moderation team to remove flame spam if needed).

So, the question is, in your opinion : Can you think of a system of editors for Live For Speed, upon a series of criteria? (Those criteria being :
- What should the editors be allowed to create? (Cars, tracks, IA patterns, UI menus, classes, car parts, minor physics upgrades?)
- To which extent the editors would help the user in the process of creation? (only helping to incorporate custom made models, by adding some physical values to them, or assisting the user in the process of designing like Bob's track builder, and a simple creation editor for cars with a choice between type of parts and easy modelling like BeSpoke?)
- How would other users get the created content? (mandatory download each time you connect a server, or a new category in LFSWorld with links for the downloads)
- What means of control should there be to ensure the quality of the content is sufficiently high and that it respects the spirit of Live For Speed? (either a review by Scavier itself, a review by a list of designated people, designated either by the devs or by the community, or a peer-reviewed system?)
)

Please note that the criteria list is not yet defined, and I hope that within this thread people will provide other intersting criterias that we could add to this list. Please remember as well that the list of ideas to match the criterias are not 'options', they are just here to give a more precise idea of what criteria is dealing with what.

I started this topic with the intent of a mature discussion, so I, the mods, and other posters will surely appreciate it it stayed so.

Good deliberation !

Summary of the ideas posted so far (please tell me if the summary I did misses a point of your thought ) :

- evilpimp : "Improved AutoX editor" - A very large square of asphalt with the ability of drawing lines and curves (borders of the track), adding elements such as curbs and grass (presumably with all the existing feature of the layout builder). Supposedly working on a single, new, built on purpose area. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055378#post1055378

- The Very End : "Tool to create cars and tracks from scratch" - A program that could/would be released ASAP by the devs allowing users with knowledge in programming and modelling, which outputs would be limited to offline gameplay. Possibility of online support if the work or part of it is approved by the devs themselves. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055461#post1055461

- TagForce : "Concerns about licensing issues" - Any real life content (cars, venues, etc) would face licensing issues if it had to be approved by the developpers, which jeopardize their inclusion without strict conditions about the licenses. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055542#post1055542 + Mods can not change the original files of LFS nor the physics, should be available unlimitedly for offline play and require approval from a dedicated team in order to get playable online. They should be available only on an unofficial site for the online-able mods and not for auto-download each time you join a server. It would require server-side check to ensure the mod is authorized online. The editors may be in a Bob's Track Builder pattern, with the option of modding them/creating new ones. Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055973#post1055973

- duke_toaster : "Standardized programs" - Mods would be able to create cars and track and possibly minor changes in the game (AI). The editors would be available in standardized tools : a 3D modeller and a program like VHPA to include physics data to the cars. The mods will be downlodable with the main LFS file and would have two levels of approval : a team of moderators dans designed community people, then a final approval by Scavier. Any real-life content could be made with an authorization from its owner (and the person would photocopying the letter to Scavier). Post : http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=1055950#post1055950

I think they should make a huge block of ciment and allow people to add lines (even bent lines to make corners) and add some curbs and grass. That way everyone can create their little tracks as if it was an AutoX layout but as a track.

Quote from Zen321 :

Indeed, through opinions shared on this forum concerning the rate of progress, I am sure that the team knows that to keep up the pace with a broader competition (iRacing, rFactor, nKPro...) they will have either to increase the number of programmers, modellers or allow our large community to include 'homemade' contents.

None of those things have ever been shown to increase productivity, in fact there are large bodies of work that prove contrary. A good analogy I once heard, is that you cannot get a baby faster by assigning more women to the task.

Quote from DarkTimes :

None of those things have ever been shown to increase productivity, in fact there are large bodies of work that prove contrary. A good analogy I once heard, is that you cannot get a baby faster by assigning more women to the task.

First guy to miss the point of that topic... It gets promising after two posts !
The point of this thread is not to discuss whether editors are a better alternative, because we are, as a hypothesis, assuming that there will be some at some point of the time. So this was to have several alternatives on how editors can be implemented, which might help the developpers in case they need it and removing part of the thinking burden they have to go through.

Your post makes no sense at all for two reasons :
- A software is very different from a baby, in case you did not notice. Thus, if I were mean, I would suggest that you do not compare living being to computers as you might sound to be a geek. But since I'm not
- Increasing the number of developpers (community content IS an increase of the number of developpers) has been shown to increase overall productivity given a fixed amount of technical level. This is called "specialization". Secondly yes, increasing the number of people working on a project might not lead to relatively higher output, but that is after a certain size of organization. And at 3 people if each produce 1 unit, adding one more people will certainly increase the output by more than 1 unit. This is the marginal productivity of labour, that is increasing until a certain point where the MPL decreases untill being as close to zero as possible, because of the maximum capacity of the capital/technical factor.

Back on topic.

I didn't compare computers with human beings. I said that trying to get a program faster by added more developers, was like trying to get a baby faster by adding more women. Plus I wasn't commenting on the overall topic, I was commenting on the part of your topic that I quoted. Also, why does using an analogy involving computers make me a geek, and why is that a bad thing?

I think there should be a tool to create the tracks and cars from scratch. Probally only the pro's would understand this program, since it's not something that is easy to do.
The contest that is made would only work offline, and would not have online support.

Tbh I don't see the problem and why Scawen and co doesn't release their tool, if they somewhat could limit it to be offline only. Then if the devs approved someone's work, then they could allow it to be played online, by release a patch and such.

Quote from DarkTimes :

I didn't compare computers with human beings. I said that trying to get a program faster by added more developers, was like trying to get a baby faster by adding more women. Plus I wasn't commenting on the overall topic, I was commenting on the part of your topic that I quoted. Also, why does using an analogy involving computers make me a geek, and why is that a bad thing?

Actually... Trying to get a baby faster by using more women DOES work.
Only the conceiving part though. You increase your chances of producing a baby (or more babies) if you have sex with 10 women a month, instead of just the one. However, the act of producing a baby is a linear one. You cannot create a head if there's been no conception. So it's impossible to have more women work on one baby. Creating a computer program is like creating a whole lot of different babies, and combining them to form a football team. All those babies can be created by a lot of different women, and once they're done, a single coach takes over and tells them how to play together.

Quote from The Very End :

I think there should be a tool to create the tracks and cars from scratch. Probally only the pro's would understand this program, since it's not something that is easy to do.
The contest that is made would only work offline, and would not have online support.

Tbh I don't see the problem and why Scawen and co doesn't release their tool, if they somewhat could limit it to be offline only. Then if the devs approved someone's work, then they could allow it to be played online, by release a patch and such.

If the Devs need to approve each mod, and have to patch their program for it, then there will be a huge problem with licensing. So, don't expect any real life content.

Thanks evilpimp and TVE for your interesting contributions!

I summed your ideas in the first post, so that to prevent people from plagiating them (Please tell me in any modifications to your idea should be made so that I can update them).

Thanks again guys, and keep proposing

EDIT : Did not see your post TagForce, nice analogy with the football team I added your concern with real-life licensing issues in the first post, if you do mind, please tell me and I will remove it.

Besides all that has been said, having a baby can't really be compared with programming.

Adding more people does work (faster development) when done properly.

If you ran the team of people kind of like an Information Technology group like in the private sector it can be done!!

Quote from Zen321 :

- What should the editors be allowed to create? (Cars, tracks, IA patterns, UI menus, classes, car parts, minor physics upgrades?)

Cars and tracks (including AI). Possibly other more minor things. Content would have to be fictional or to have permission. Permission e-mails would be sent out be ScaViEr unless there is a reason not to (e.g. it being a mate's local kart track).

Quote :

- To which extent the editors would help the user in the process of creation? (only helping to incorporate custom made models, by adding some physical values to them, or assisting the user in the process of designing like Bob's track builder, and a simple creation editor for cars with a choice between type of parts and easy modelling like BeSpoke?)

Car and track creation in standard 3D modelling software. Something like VHPA to generate physics for cars.

Quote :

- How would other users get the created content? (mandatory download each time you connect a server, or a new category in LFSWorld with links for the downloads)

Included within the main Live For Speed download.

Quote :

- What means of control should there be to ensure the quality of the content is sufficiently high and that it respects the spirit of Live For Speed? (either a review by Scavier itself, a review by a list of designated people, designated either by the devs or by the community, or a peer-reviewed system?)

Evaluation by a community panel designated by forum moderators and developers, followed by a final approval by developers.

The baby analogy holds true for the LFS engine itself. However, that doesn't hold true for dummies (cars) and baby clothes (tracks), which can be made separately.

Quote from Zen321 :

EDIT : Did not see your post TagForce, nice analogy with the football team I added your concern with real-life licensing issues in the first post, if you do mind, please tell me and I will remove it.

I don't mind...

In fact... In the other thread I made quite an extensive post considering what I thought at the time to be issues that we need to concern ourselves with with regards to mods... They range from clogging the LFS folder, to monetary issues for users, to licensing issues and ability to play mods on- or offline.

To save everybody the trouble from looking it up and reading through the whole beast, here's a summary of the main points:

• Allowing all mods will result in a HUGE (30+ GB) LFS folder. A certification system needs to be made to control the amount of mods available (at least for online play).
  
• Devs creating mods poses 2 problems:
  • Devs would need to license real life content, as they use it to make money
    
  • Devs would need to stay involved in LFS using either pay-per-download, or simply because they want to. Pay-per-download locks out a lot of casual players, and when the devs quit, LFS quits (we're in it for LFS, not the devs, are we?)
    
• Physicswise LFS should be closed. Any mod should not change the physics values of LFS. Just to keep the mods on par with the quality of the LFS physics, they should only be able to reference values within LFS. The main program should provide the parameters, not the mod (which is completely unlike the way rFactor works, where each mod can change the physics parameters to its liking)
  
• Mods should be made available on a central site (at least online compatible ones), not affiliated to Scavier (plausible deniability). I know people would love to see LFSWorld host them, but that would pose a licensing problem.
  
• Online mods need to be approved before being made available on the internetz for online play. Preferably on the site mentioned above. This would require a team of dedicated players that test and grade mods. (this poses another problem which I won't go into just yet)
  
• All mods should be made available for offline play, as long as they don't change any of the original gamefiles. This doesn't need to be on the website mentioned above, but can be from anywhere. Just to encourage modding. The more mods get made, the better chance there are good ones.
  

Now, what would this require from Scavier? Very little in terms of changing LFS as it is at the moment, actually. The fact they can't create (real life) mods doesn't mean they cannot facilitate the creation of them. So here goes:

• A server side check (again, preferably using the site above, but may be adjustable, as long as there is a way for LFS to check legitimacy of the site and/or mod) to check if a mod is online compatible. Think hashcode checked with the download site's hashcode for the mod.
  
• Proper Folder management. Setups in mod folders, or any logical folder where you won't get murdered by a gazillion different setup files. Also, track based folders for setups.
  
• Of course, editors or enough file format information and inner game requirement informations so that people can create their own editors (think BTB).
  

Now, all of you fire away at my thoughts, that's what I put them here for.

So far so good guys !

Thanks duke_toaster dans TagForce for your contributions. @TagForce I think we summed up the main concerns and problems an editor system would raise. I did not think of money when building the criteria up, but it is a very interesting point that I hope will get thought about here.

Quote from wildfire083 :

If you ran the team of people kind of like an Information Technology group like in the private sector it can be done!!

Could you be a bit more specific ? Are you speaking of how to choose/manage a team of mod tester and approvers or are you on the baby analogy ?

I'm not talking "forward the e-mail", I'm talking "photocopy the letter".

Quote from duke_toaster :

I'm not talking "forward the e-mail", I'm talking "photocopy the letter".

Changed.

My suggestions:

Mods should be moderated to a certain extent, reviewed by the devs themselves or anyone assigned the task, and they should pass the following:

- content of mod
- licensing issues (If it needs a license, fail)
- working properly (No bugs visible)
- For cars, realism (Is it a 2000 HP, hover car? If it is then fail)
- File size (Nothing too big)
- Does not alter any of the current content

That's what I can think of for now.

We're sort of venturing into way-too-complicated territory.

You can't expect the devs to moderate user-created content. They're a 3-man team, it just wouldn't be possible for them to oversee the quality of the masses of content that would be created.
Additionally, modding does not require licenses because it's free and user-generated. The second the developers get involved, they're endorsing a branded product and open to all kinds of legal crap.

Next, the track spline editing sounds a lot like my idea of a variable/spline based track design system, sort of like a more advanced version of Trackmania. Choose a style, fill in the variables, lay it down. No downloads required since all LFS would need to do would be recreate those values. It would take a hell of a lot of work though, and to end up with over 9000 (!1!111!!) versions of the 'Ring may not actually be worth it.

If you can find my post, congrats because I never can when these things are brought up

But the real questions are these:
1. Who would choose the content moderators? Not everyone has the same taste and a small group of individuals couldn't find all of the potential bugs in a car or track. It would need widespread testing or we'd be complaining about buggy releases. Since LFS is still pre-release and subject to it's own bugs, this would be a nightmare to police. Just because someone is a good forum mod doesn't mean they'd be good at testing - or want to do it.

2. What would the quality be judged against? Since (almost) nobody here will have driven any of the real tracks and we can't test the "realism" it's all going to be opinion-based. And where there's opinions, there's mistakes and arguments, which then cause even more delays.

I need to put a page up on my site that covers my idea for the variable-based mod system so I can refer people to it in situations like these. It works for vehicles too since we already have a few engine styles modelled.

If your going to mod LFS so heavily, you minds well edit the AI files to make them faster so you can just drive offline on a separate installation with the mods and etc. Even then someone HAS the brains to make some interface that needs to lfs patching to use mods online

Me support all the way. It's time for a rebellion :P

The modding tools are going to be there, when they are there.
And the devs dont make that game to get millionairs, they make the game (you know what i mean^^) for their own enjoyment. And so they are happy with content thats released by now.
Dont always want things. Go play Rtractor or have some patience. There will be an editor, but the number of cars and tracks that are there, is very fine with me.
Anyway, this was suggested about 999999999999999999999999 times before, so PLEASE ppl, stop this(The editor and mod stuff).We shuold all know that we are not getting the things we want, unless the devs want them to be in the game.

Quote from Dajmin :

We're sort of venturing into way-too-complicated territory.

You can't expect the devs to moderate user-created content. They're a 3-man team, it just wouldn't be possible for them to oversee the quality of the masses of content that would be created.
Additionally, modding does not require licenses because it's free and user-generated. The second the developers get involved, they're endorsing a branded product and open to all kinds of legal crap.

The total modding can of worms should be left in the cupboard. Whilst this would preclude licenced content, it wouldn't preclude all content. We can have generic trucks, generic stock cars ... you get the drill.

Quote :

But the real questions are these:
1. Who would choose the content moderators? Not everyone has the same taste and a small group of individuals couldn't find all of the potential bugs in a car or track. It would need widespread testing or we'd be complaining about buggy releases. Since LFS is still pre-release and subject to it's own bugs, this would be a nightmare to police. Just because someone is a good forum mod doesn't mean they'd be good at testing - or want to do it.

In my opinion it would be forum moderators and the devs who would select the Content Filtration Panel.

Quote :

2. What would the quality be judged against? Since (almost) nobody here will have driven any of the real tracks and we can't test the "realism" it's all going to be opinion-based. And where there's opinions, there's mistakes and arguments, which then cause even more delays.

Sufficient quality for it to be a "keeper" if there was total modding. Or as good as existing LFS content.

I wish I knew how to multi-quote

Quote from duke_toaster :

We can have generic trucks, generic stock cars ... you get the drill.

Fair enough, but the second somebody crossed the line from "generic" to "I stuck a bit from a Focus on here and a bit from a Saxo on there" the proverbial hits the proverbial. The devs need to avoid that as much as possible and the best way of doing that is washing their hands of the project.

Quote from duke_toaster :

In my opinion it would be forum moderators and the devs who would select the Content Filtration Panel.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Sufficient quality for it to be a "keeper" if there was total modding. Or as good as existing LFS content.

I assumed that would be how it worked but as I said, just because somebody is a good forum member or a good forum moderator doesn't mean they know when something is worth keeping. They can easily enough scout for licensed content, that much is fine. But in terms of what is "worth" keeping is all individual taste. I might love it, but they might hate it. Their decision is to get rid of it and I get no say. It would lead to even more forum bashing.

I'd suggest a community voting feature but those always end up a complete disaster. That said, it could be easily moderated by the same team here. Multiple accounts = ban and removal of submitted content. But policing the demo accounts could be a nightmare.

And that raises another issue - how to prevent demo users just modding the rest of the content into the demo. It's all a whole horrible big can of worms which could be solved if my variable-based system was limited to licensed users
Whatever happens, I don't envy the job of whoever looks after it.

Quote from Dajmin :

I wish I knew how to multi-quote


Whatever happens, I don't envy the job of whoever looks after it.

I can help you there
Just hit the middle button on the bottom right for each post you want to quote, and the regular (left) button for the last post you want to quote...

And I agree... :P

Has any of you guys played "generally"? This game is small and stupid but it kept me thanks to its editor. If anyone of you wants to try I'm sure you can find it easily. In fact it has something in common with LFS I think because there are blocks as in LFS and bridges like it and the sounds are in their own directory and compatible with lfs if u want to set them there.

This gone a bit out of what I wanted to say. This game had a editor with which u can place audience, AI line, AI pitlane line, water, mud snow grass asphalt and draw on those surfaces... Almost everything you would want to make a LFS track with it(sadly not compatible with LFS).