I just wanted to explain that progress hasn't been slow due to lack of time or funding. We have had plenty of time and enough money to live in a nice warm house with plenty of food to eat and a good internet connection. I see it more like an inevitable temporary slowdown after a decade of hard work with long hours. A slowdown that started in my case when the tyre physics development took me on a journey of discovery with no easy way out until I eventually gained a few new interests which I got excited about.
Anyway, funding wouldn't help at all, we have plenty of time. The only way money could help is if we got an office and started hiring people. But we have no interest in that at all. Our motivation is more on the side of what interests us, rather than what makes the most money. We're not that type of capitalists at all and don't want to manage a team of developers. That is totally out of the question. It's actually quite an alien thought to me that money can make development happen quicker.
Having said that, we do need to earn a decent living and that is one part of the motivation to get back on the case and get the new physics out then S3. Also we have certain aims for the project and want to see them done.
I don't really mind if people say it's too little too late or we have squandered our opportunity and LFS is dead. Doesn't really matter, the dip happened, I've stopped smoking and got fit, and that's OK with me. At the moment I'm working and cycling too. Doesn't have to be one or the other. I can't worry that people had to wait longer than they wanted to. I'm hoping to make some good progress in the coming months.
Anyone with half a brain cell can read this above statement and understand fully where the developers are coming from.
for anyone to then start a thread with ...
"Coming from ZERO experience in developing a simulator I think the developers should do this or the sim it metaphorically dead"
...is ignorance to the extreme. It's like people can't actually escape their own brains for just a moment and understand someone else's way of doing things.
...if it is not about the money, but for the love of the sim, i still don´t get it why you don´t accept at least a little help from the community?
there are some very talented people out there and even if you do not open lfs for modding, please at least think about accepting something the people offer you for free.
we all want lfs to become the greatest driving (racing) simulator of all time, but to reach the goals and include every type of racing class and car you need manhours...
what about that "industrial area" in south city? there are just tiny bits missing to make this part usable and to allow for at least four new combinations with the existing south city track.
and even if it has been repeated a thousand times: why can´t we just drive the vws with its current physics, as we have to learn the new physics on all cars when it will be released anyways?
there is nothing wrong with being independent, but you can´t make it all alone - in the end you need us all to play what you created...
Those few sentences are what really caught my attention. Having my LFS history drawing back to the past far from now, way before my registering date. I still remember the developers caring about the community to a certain point and listening to feedback, thus involving every small, but important part of the community into the development. Those few sentences totally blew that illusion up in me, that I've built up in the past few years.
Have you ever written to your favourite band and said that if they just do it for the love of music won't don't they accept contributions from their fanbase? Obviously not.
I sometimes wonder if people actually read what the developers say
"We love developing sims, sometimes we have downtimes, but this is how we do things"
This approach brought us LFS in the first place, and at the time blew everything out of the water.
The devs couldn't be clearer. it's like going to your ex-girlfriend and asking her to change for you so you can get together. It's quite frankly getting a bit weird.
It's not about what you or I want, it's about a few guys trying to create something really special. There's nothing worse for example than a band having to write songs they know 'will sell' because of pressure from the market place. I think it's FANTASTIC that the developers have enough freedom in this world to work as they please and not get stressed to **** working 9-5, having to hire people and take on additional responsibilities. That should be celebrated and NOT criticised.
if it takes 10 years, so be it, so what? None of us are financially invested or married to LFS. We are customers. We bought an amazing product and it's still great value for money. We can come and go as we please.
How can you compare a totally closed court of a music band and a group of "enthusiast" programmers that rarely make up for a company? I don't get your point at all... A music band doesn't have any room for contribution, a racing simulator definiately does.
Thanks guys, I know a lot of people really do understand and accept our way of doing things.
I think you misunderstood what I said a little bit, because I didn't say that I don't care about the community. Just that I can't worry about the dip in progress. After a decade of really hard work (12 to 15 hour days used to be the normal thing for me) it would have been great if we could just reel off another decade just the same. But, with the benefit of hindsight, neither Eric nor I were capable of continuing like that.
I am trying to make the point that the unplanned dip, which came about for whatever reason, could be beneficial in the long run if we can work in a sustainable way. For example, we are still alive which is a good start and I'm also a real life racer now who considers his tyres and races on tracks that vary a lot due to the weather!
And this is what saddens me. Essentially what you are saying is LFS is a project you develop, in your own time, with your own priorities. The community doesn't really impact this and you'll develop the solution when and if you see fit. That is absolutely, 100% your own prerogative and I would be rude and ignorant to tell you how to develop your own software.
But what makes this sad for me, is that I wanted LFS to be more. To actually have more than one update every 12 months and actually get new features that are worth getting excited about in a 5 year time frame. You don't have to be a capitalist to realize that not shipping a new track, that you in theory had nearly completed over 4 years ago, reflects on the product. It's alien to you that more money can make development quicker? Clearly. Because it's also alien to everyone else how stunningly slow the development of this solution has been. Money makes the world go around, it also makes software development projects move quicker. (And yes, I've read the "Mythical Man Month" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month)
LFS may not be dead from your own development priority. But the wonderful community of people I have enjoyed playing with, have come and gone and left in their hundreds due to the lack of progress. A decision that is solely yours, and one that saddens me in that it hasn't produced anything of a real improvement for many, many years.
A band create a product which you the end user interact with and derive satisfaction from. A band, in effect is no different from a group of developers. They are both businesses, both 'incomes' come from content they provide to the market place, but some can survive for long periods without new material because they
1. Don't have time
2. Can live off continual income from music sales
3. Want to chill and do something else for a while
4. Working hard to create new content
.... now can you see the similarities?
A band, say with a long period between albums, could conceivably have 'contributions' from their fan base. Whether it be some chords or melodies structures. The reason this isn't suggested is because people know that bands work 'in their own way' and it would be completely nonsense to assume one can impose one's work ethic on another entity. Especially in something creative... which simulations are. It doesn't take a wild leap of imagination to understand not everyone is the same and can enjoy/thrive in the same work/business/creative environment as everyone else.
I think it is nothing short of remarkable that someone like Scawan can work in the way he does. Again, I repeat, it should be lauded, respected, celebrated... etc.... Having a largely stress free (I hope of course) life that allows you to do something you love when you want. That's AMAZING.
But what you fail to notice here is that this is not *just* a group of people putting together a sim. This is a commercial venture. They are SELLING a product. As soon as you sell something, you set expectations about it. Even with no contact or commitment involved in the purchase, you are working in the world of commerce and that comes with inherent attributes of trade.
I doubt many here are well versed in economics, but if you think the community of people that has paid for a product should celebrate the software developers for having an attitude that works against bringing new versions of the product to market, you are mad. Now don't get me wrong, I totally agree that the money we've paid so far for S2 is worth every, single penny. The cost of LFS today is well worth the product. BUT the point I am making is Scawen and crew and not just making an open source project in their own time, they are SELLING a solution and that comes with the burden of satisfying the expectation they set when selling a product.
Most people in today's commercial environment are used to getting product updates within a 12 month cycle. Heck, let me explain a little about my own professional experience. Microsoft used to have a 3 year planning, development and release cycle. Each version of Windows would be planned, designed, developed, tested and so on over 3 years. This was common across large software companies. What happened over the last few years is the ease at which people could build and deploy software reduced dramatically. Due to a variety of factors (quality of development platforms, the connectivity of the internet and the age of the smart mobile/tablet device with an inbuilt software delivery platform, aka the Apple App Store) people could develop and deliver updates to software well within the 3 year cycle. This means now I can develop a game for the iPhone within months, and then deliver new content updates within months. Heck I have seen developers build apps for phones and deliver content updates every 4 weeks. What does this mean for Microsoft? They've now totally reorganized MASSIVE parts of their development org to be on a 6 month delivery cycle. They accept they must be able to deliver software quicker and reflect the much faster delivery times of a cloud based software world.
How does this reflect on LFS? Because potential new customers to LFS who find out that there hasn't been an update in 3 YEARS are not going to buy the product. If they don't buy the product, there is a dwindling line of revenue for the continued development of the product. As more people leave due to a lack of updates and fewer people buy due to a lack of updates. Guess what happens? Scawen ends up making a decision. Can he afford to develop the product further? If he's happy to continue developing, even if no money comes in, his time to spend on it becomes even less while he finds other sources of income. Guess what? updates become rarer, less people play, the best thing about LFS starts to die. i.e. there is a smaller, disappearing community of online racers.
This results in me being sad. Because I love LFS and I would love an update of content to reinvigorate the exciting racing times I've had in the past... But oh well. Life goes on. If you want to celebrate a bunch of guys who sell you something, then constantly tease you with a possible update that takes many, many years to develop. While the rest of the world moves at a different pace, then slap him on the back, send him a nice email and raise your fingers at the world.
I however wish Scawen was a little more proactive and organized and could at least get Rockingham out the door. Or heck, how about splicing Fern Bay, South City, Blackwood, Aston, Westhill and Kyoto into one MASSIVE map. Today's PC surely could load that and we could make up some monster combinations. It would at least give us all some new lease of life into the fun we could have...
Or we could wait for another 3-4 years for a physics update which I'm not even sure will make a massive difference to what makes LFS so awesome. Close, online multiplayer racing. Will a new physics model significantly improve this? Who knows... maybe we never will.
Why can't people get through their brains that just because you are a commercial venture doesn't mean you have to fit the perfect corporate model. David Bowie didn't release an album for 10 years, but I am sure you didn't write to him reminding him that he is a commercial venture and SELLING a product that people have expectations of.
I'd much rather live in a society where people like Scawan have the opportunity to work in a way that they do. I, like everyone, would love to have regular updates from LFS, that's just stating the obvious. However, and this is something you seem to fail to understand, is that people work in different ways and if someone can live off LFS and enjoy life rather than live in a corporate structure like Microsoft, that simply is amazing... I'd say inspirational.
if you can't see that... well I feel sorry for you. Even if it's not a model you'd work within yourself, it should at least gain your respect. Sometimes 'capitalists' don't actually understand true free-market capitalism... the clue is in the name 'free'.
While I've accepted how LFS ended up (although I'd love it to be much more than it is) the music disc comparison doesn't really make much sense.
When you buy an music album, which is a completely different medium in both usage and pricing in itself compared to video games, you ARE buying a complete and finished entertainment product.
You don't buy an album and expect to have it missing certain instruments or vocals from some songs which may or may not be added later after you've purchased it.
Here you come with the music comparision again, which is totally off-the-way, yet again. On the answer to me, you forgot the fact that LFS as a racing simulator, a software, data structures, algorhythms, code allows individuals to make additions to the game upon studying the program for a while. Music has a style for each an every song that cannot be defined. Programs have rules, that allow contributions upon studying... That's a good difference to begin with.
On the other hand, with your 10 years break comparision in music industry. Well, I'm yet to hear a band releasing their album as ALPHA or Work in Progress and sell it for actual money. Selling an alpha or early release or whatever you call it, for money is asking for mass and quality criticism and expectations towards continous updates recognizing the PAYING community's feedback. If Live for Speed was released as the Final version, nobody would have the right to complain.
Plenty of bands play around with songs in 'BETA' phases on tours gauging crowd reactions and so on and making adjustments. i.e 'adding contributions upon studying.' So in fact fans are paying to listen to songs that are not complete. I did recently at a Susanne Sundfor gig. She played a new song for the first time, which if I divide ticket prices by set list - 20/10 let's say, cost me £2. I have listened to latest versions of said song and it's changed. Am I complaining I listened (or in your term 'paid') to a WIP song? No, because I am not stupid and it was fantastic. Not that LFS should be described as a WIP considering that until recently it was one of the most complete sims ever.
So again, another comparison proved.
When you buy S1 or S2 you are not buying a BETA product. That IS the product you buy. No ifs no buts. Sure it may still be being developed, but that's not an uncommon model. Restaurants for example constantly tweak and develop recipes but you wouldn't say a menu item is in 'BETA' phase or a WIP.
People attach these weird dramatic and emotion words to threads like 'death' and 'no development' (what I really think is people just get a weird kick out of being dramatic hoping that they will be proved right that it's 'dead'). Scawan really couldn't be clearer.
And £24 for S2.... you really do not have ANY right to complain at all. It's still a fantastic simulator for pocket money.
The only reason I am bothering to post here is to hope that some people might read this and understand you don't have to be a corporate bore to get on in life.
lol your ok il spell anything as i see fit. My real answer for you would not require words just two fingers would do. Comical when someone has nothing to actually say yet feels like the need to seek attention by correcting someones post.
Clearly no where near as well versed as you, but then, we have the brains, the looks, and less arrogance, so that kind of evens things up
In reality, the shortening of development cycles, particularly of operating systems is less about the ease of deployment and more about artificially speeding up obsolescence.
Back in the ninety's, you could build a new PC every six months and it would be able to do things that were not possible on the previous one - not slower or more hassle - completely impractical, or totally impossible. A 3 year old PC was an antique. In those days, the speed of developments in hardware and software, and their direct effect on the functionality and usability of PC's drove the market and ensured that consumers kept updating.
These days there is very little you can do on a new PC that you can't do on a five year old one. Sure the new one can encode mpegs a little faster and cope better with multiple tabs of wep pages full of damn full motion adverts, but for most things you really don't need to keep buying new hardware or software.
So, in order to drive the market and keep people upgrading, the manufacturers artificially shorten the OS life cycle. They then limit support for older hardware in their OSes, and also cut off support to all but the most recent few OS iterations. Third party developers can't afford to maintain versions of their applications for more than a couple of OS versions, and cannot provide support for OSes that are no longer supported by the OS developer. This means that to keep up to date with the latest versions of the apps they use, consumers are forced to update their hardware and OS way more often than should be necessary.
I think not being part of that commercial environment reflects very well on LFS.
Anyhow, you are missing the point that LFS is a result of Scawen and friends wanting to escape from this corporate approach to development with all it's deadline crunching, compromise, Marketing BS and programmer burn-out.
Absolutely, Why replace XP with Vista ?, lets sell a new OS. Why, ( Please, why for F sake ) replace 7 with 8 ?. ( Other than to drive people to Linux )
The whole process is driven by greed and money. It's the same with your latest version of office, what the heck do you need to write a letter ? Clearly NZ$1000 for Office 2010 prof is just what everyone needs.
The latest, ( and most ) COD is an example of this on the gaming front, or, in fact, most console games.
Buy a PS4, shame you need to buy all new games for it.
Meanwhile my 2007 pc box ( later video card tho ) still runs the latest and greatest while barely raising a sweat.
Personally, sarcasm aside, LFS can still be developed into a truly great racing sim, another 5 years and we should get weather, day and night, and changing track conditions. As a deal, just forget the Sirocco. That should save a bit on development time.
Also, let the community loose on tracks, they get to submit them to you, if they're up to scratch, then they go public.
I REALLY want to race Bathurst with LFS, what top speed will a UF1 reach ?
