Quote from deggis :

True. But still "it's unfinished Alpha" is used so often as an excuse for missing features, which is very two-faced.

Its one thing missing features that will be added, its a completely different thing for things like the driving experience which won't necessarily change that much between Alpha and Final.

I don't think we should shy away from having LFS compared or reviewed based on it being 'alpha'. It is extremely feature rich and stable software which puts many commercial releases to shame.

In such reviews it is valid to point out features which may be missing or very basic in LFS, as long as it is made clear that it's a product continually being developed. You can't moan that LFS doesn't get the exposure or full-on reviews for being alpha, and then pull out the 'it's still alpha' when something is criticised.

rF and LFS are both getting continual updates and improvements. Both are for sale and effectively released. It seems, at least for the near future, rFactor is not being totally abbandoned for the next project, and barring disaster LFS has a development plan stretching for quite a few more years.

The development plan of LFS is quite different than most sims, but I think continually using 'it's still alpha' when there is valid criticism or comparrison, can wear a little thin in the sim racing community.

As to the ASS review, I'll probably try to read it later, but it's not sounding like it made any great steps forward from their usual quality. I've not driven the BF1 much, and even less the BMW in rF, but like with all the other cars, LFS left me feeling I was driving a car in contact with the road and rF didn't have the same success.....

I did love they way the compare top speeds with min and max downforce.
a) who cares about top speeds, handling is the important comparison, where the tyre physics matters
b) does rF use the same wing angle minimums/maximums as LFS? probably not exactly

I don't find the levels of grip unbelieveable, I've heard of F1 cars pulling 4g before.

I do however agree with their complaints about lack of suspension/diff adjustments, this is one area where LFS could be better. The more I can play with the better.

On the whole though, the review completely missed the point. A shame. But expected.

Quote from SamH :

For me, ASS have quite some credibility to claw back following the nKP preview. I didn't think that the BMW Sauber comparison did anything to address that, really. Nothing was related to actual telemetry in the comparison, which made the whole review really rather silly. Because the rFactor Sauber went faster than the LFS Sauber, rFactor was a better sim of the Sauber!? Uhhh..

One thing that I did consider to be a plus, in the comparison, is that they actually set about comparing an Alpha install of LFS directly with a Golden Master install of rFactor. Now, ASS can have no excuse for negating to discuss/cover LFS on the basis that LFS is in an Alpha stage of development.

Its a shame as it would have been really interesting to read a detailed and comprehensive Review from the BMWs in rF and LFS. Not just rFactor praising

Still it is good to have a Race Sim Magazine for free

Quote from AndroidXP :

I guess some already saw it, if they read the LFS vs. rFactor thread.

It's a typical ASS (pun intended) review. They merely compare how realistic the setup options are, and then do some dubious tests with the default setup. Somehow they "feel" that both cars offer too much grip, but in the end rFactor is preferred because it offers more grip.

...

The F1 cars in Gran Turismo have crazy grip, so that must be the best "sim" Their testing method seems to be to set the maximum/minimum amount on everything and then try to compare it to how the RL thing should be...setting up a car is always compromising certain things to get the best overall balance for the track.

Of course it'd be nearly impossible to get all the same settings on all aspects of the cars, to compare them, which is why i dont understand why you'd even try.

Alpha, beta, release.. Does never reflect the 'finishedness' of software. Its just the stamp the developer slams on the box.

I find the comparisson a bit strange especially as the writer is pretty knowledgable. Both sims differ greatly in the core physics engines, even if they'd have exactly the same car setup parameters, they would still be very different to drive. Actually I'd say they are eachothers opposites, with the 'truth' more inclined towards LFS, but not reached yet..

Quote from Niels Heusinkveld :

Alpha, beta, release.. Does never reflect the 'finishedness' of software. Its just the stamp the developer slams on the box.

I don't know about any other software developer, but LFS are quite clear on what the alpha/beta/final suffix means for their software.

Alpha - All features, planned for the final release, have not yet been implemented in the sim.

Beta - All features planned have been implemented but testing continues, to ensure the product is stable. (for LFS, this period is likely to be brief)

Final - All features are implemented and testing has proven that the product is stable, and suitable for release. Saving minor updates, to accommodate changes in Operating Systems, product hacks etc (or perhaps to embrace new hardware?), there will be no further development in the product.

Sam is right. Alpha tells us that S2 has more features to be implemented yet before it is complete.

Yeah absolutely! What I mean is many companies releasing 'alpha' software would probably have loads of bugs in it, barely managing to install let alone run.. And LFS is more stable than many 'final' software.

Ive just read most of this mag. Page 38 third column talking about slip curves. He lists a load of sims and doesnt even mention LFS!!!!!

Talks quite highly about the physics in GTR2 and the damn magazine is bundled with a physics improvement!! What the hell.......... and as for the BMW Sauber comparison I'm not even going to bother

like i said in the other thread... ASS somehow is able to contradict itself over and over within the same issue lol.