Quote from Jiminee :

We are all frustrated real racers first sim-racers second and its that frustration that spills over.

I assume that "We" doesn't count me in. I'm quite happy with my life and surely not frustrated because I'm not the race car driver I never wanted to be.
Please don't apply your logic to others, they might have an inner world that's far larger than the one you're willing to imagine with your cheap and failing psychology.

Quote from Albieg :

I assume that "We" doesn't count me in. I'm quite happy with my life and surely not frustrated because I'm not the race car driver I never wanted to be.
Please don't apply your logic to others, they might have an inner world that's far larger than the one you're willing to imagine with your cheap and failing psychology.

While there are some people like you, there are also some who REALLY have the wish to be a racing driver, so please tone it down next time...

Excuse me? I was talking about myself and my life, and he was too (his sentence is clear). He shouldn't have put everyone in that bunch. I just objected to this since it's not the first time that's happening (but maybe you failed to see it).
I take Jiminee sentence as some kind of offense because what he says flattens every sim-racer to a very limited personal dimension while explaining some psychological dynamics that are far from truth, at least in my case. If your truth is different that doesn't mean I feel comfortable with Jiminee's thoughts. They are wrong and offensive to me. I may be a bit picky, but I don't like those rules to be applied to me. It's all I'm asking. I'm not a Borg, and I don't like to be treated as such.

Relax, Albieg, what Jiminee wrote was clearly an exaggeration, you really shouldn't feel offended by such a statement. I mean, I would rather be racing in real life, but I'm not frustrated either -- I hope

It wasn't cleary an exaggeration, Linsen. That was Jiminee's explanation to the question: why there's so much angst in the sim racing community?
He wondered quite a while about it, and came up with an answer. That's just part of the answer. If it's the real answer, I'm very unwilling to be considered part of it, or part of a sim scene built on those premises. I'm quite relaxed about it really. But maybe I'm failing to see the bitter truth underneath this scene, and Jiminee's right. If he is, this is no longer a place for me. Pity on me for being so shortsighted.

seriously, wtf. you seem to be getting so wound up over whats basicly an innocent comment.

It's cool to see that a significant number of the community here have seen right through the basic attitudes and motives behind A.S.S., the same attitudes and motives that were ridiculously predictable for some of us when A.S.S. was first announced and we took a look at the list of people behind it.

Care to fill the rest of us in?

It was only a theory and a tongue in cheek one at that.
Honestly I would be pretty useless as a real racer, I just dont have the balls to say go through Turn 8 at Adelaide flat out.....
I didnt really capture it in what I put there, but its not just that we are frustrated that we are not able to do this for real, its more that we have our own impression over how we would go about real racing if we could and many (obviously not all) use sim racing as a substitute for that, so if there are certain features in sims that are not quite right they bother some racers and not others because we are all looking to do this for different reasons, even if we end up at the same point.
Just like some people would put significatly improved AI as their most wanted feature in the next gen of sims, others could be quite happy with no AI as they only race online.

Is it me, or is it hot in here?

I leave you guys alone for a few days and World war III kicks off. I am amazed at the rudeness of some members of this community and complete lack of sensibilities when addressing an obvioously touchy subject. Or should that be 'arguable' . . .

I've said it before both here and on other subjects, but who are we to throw the first stones? I for one, as aforementioned, have absolutly no moral standpoint here as do not many others here. I think the ASS guys have defended themselves admirable and whilst I may not support their mag in any way I thought thier replys have been patient and comprehensive. I only wish I could say the same for some of 'our' retorts. As far as moral victories go ASS:1 - LFS community:0.

The only way that we can justify ourselves here is by starting up a rival mag that we can say in all honesty that we write unbiased, factual, truthful reviews and articles that offer unrivalled entertainment and valuie for money (I.E. Free. Just as ASS is. Free. We ain't paid for it. We have no financial recourse. Again. No moral highground.) If we can do that then we are allowed to throw arrows from our lofty battlements.

I can pretty much garantee . . . that ain't ever going to happen.

Running a mag, albeit a small niche market rag, requires a huge amount of dedication, cost and time. Someone, somewhere needs to give over their life to start something like this and even more to keep the damn thing going. Anyone? Who threw the biggest stone? Shouldn't he be the first to step up?

Someone mentioned Top Gear as a 'Magazine' to see contibuters telling it how it is. Well, Top Gear is an incredable powerful programme. It's presenters are incredable biased (Which is what makes it so entertaining) but that is metered out by the fact you have three simutaneous arguements allowing you, the viewer, to decern the good points and the bad points. But I would never use it as a basis for buying a new car. It's entertainment first and I don't care what people say the only person who can make me buy a particular car is me.

Obvioulsy people have some very strong feelings against ASS. But, it's their mag and they can run it how ever the hell they want to. Nothing gives me or anyone the right to talk to them like we just have.

:feedtroll

Having read the LFS articles in ASS I was disappointed to find that they are just as inaccurate as the other articles, trying to claim the STCC league has 5000 racers and the way that the first article just blindly glorified LFS without pointing out the weak spots just made it seem like any other article. I'd love it if they first of all allowed proper comparison and edited the inaccurate statements.

Yeah, you're right. The STCC hasn't issued 5000 licences, it's issued licences.

Historically, the complaint from most (that I've seen, where people aren't just trolling for grins) has been that the writing in ASS has shown itself to be undeniably biased towards [insert product]. rFactor, for example. That's the make-up of this magazine, though. The content is written about products by products' fans, and the very basic premise that is established is that, if you're going to read the magazine, that's what you'll read.

Many of us (myself included) would like a mag to read where comparisons that are drawn really do try to make the journalistic leap into true journalism (in the Western World sense of the word), and aim for a BBC-level of journalism rather than an MSNBC-level. There isn't, to my knowledge, a magazine in the sim racing world where the content is NOT biased, per article, to the product it's reviewing or previewing. Until there is, if you don't like the format, just don't download it. The fact that you're not PAYING for it means that the only way to show your disapproval is to just not download it at all.

Quote from ajp71 :

and the way that the first article just blindly glorified LFS without pointing out the weak spots just made it seem like any other article.

Did you actually read the entire article or didyou stop half way? I absolutley point out some of the not so good stuff in the present version of LFS, like the lack of anything you can call an AI.
I also point out that in my personal opinion, the lack of modability is a major drawback. I know that opinion is not shared by everyone, but for me, it's "not a good thing".

So you see, even though I find LFS is one of the best sims ever created, I still think it has flaws and I'm not affraid to say so.

Quote from SamH :

Yeah, you're right. The STCC hasn't issued 5000 licences, it's issued http://licence.ukct.net/lcount.phplicences.

What you're doing there is recording the unique visitors to your servers, right? It's really just a hit counter on a set of public servers - it's got nothing to do with how popular the league is. There aren't "5000 drivers vying for a berth on the starting grid". I expect if you leave any server up for long enough and actually count the visitors (you're probably the only person doing this) you'll eventually find you have 5000+ racers there too.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

What you're doing there is recording the unique visitors to your servers, right? It's really just a hit counter on a set of public servers - it's got nothing to do with how popular the league is. There aren't "5000 drivers vying for a berth on the starting grid". I expect if you leave any server up for long enough and actually count the visitors (you're probably the only person doing this) you'll eventually find you have 5000+ racers there too.

At the end of the day, the STCC servers are a pre-qualifying system but if there were to be an STCC div 2, STCC div 3 etc. I doubt 60, let alone 6k+ would turn up every week.

As I said, the STCC system has issued over six thousand licences. Not all of them are actively in pursuit of titanium licences, but that's a completely different matter and nobody is making that claim. All of licencees have participated on at least one of the STCC servers, ergo they have been issued STCC licences. Untangle those niknaks.

The article only mentions 5000 racers on the STCC public servers, not the league. I don't see any statement that would cause one to jump to the conclusion that there is a league with 5000 people racing in it.

Quote from duke_toaster :

At the end of the day, the STCC servers are a pre-qualifying system but if there were to be an STCC div 2, STCC div 3 etc. I doubt 60, let alone 6k+ would turn up every week.

change the bloody record, you don't like the STCC? fine, just stop thinking up rubbish reasons to attack it in every thread

What we're really doing is waggling some ass in the face of some OTHER sims, whose collective online participation is nothing LIKE LFS, and whose servers, I suspect, could never boast the level of online participation that LFS can. I thoroughly expect LFS Lapper also counts unique LFSers, and anyone running a server with that would be able to boast the same or more.

Some people are pathetic and need to grow up.

Quote from SamH :

Some people are pathetic and need to grow up.

Quote from X-Ter :

Did you actually read the entire article or didyou stop half way? I absolutley point out some of the not so good stuff in the present version of LFS, like the lack of anything you can call an AI.
I also point out that in my personal opinion, the lack of modability is a major drawback. I know that opinion is not shared by everyone, but for me, it's "not a good thing".

In general I feel your article was informative and importantly unbiased, whilst I agreed with all of it and you did put both sides of the argument across most of the time I feel there were a few unjustified comments about rF being an inferior sim, if you're going to make that kind of comment I think it should really be properly explained, which wouldn't be too hard TBH. Although I guess ASS may not have liked a detailed inter-sim comparison which is silly because although they fear flame wars informed and unbiased comparison is the whole point of a sim magazine IMO.

Quote from Jakg :

change the bloody record, you don't like the STCC? fine, just stop thinking up rubbish reasons to attack it in every thread

I like the STCC and was originally signed up to be competing in it (but cancelled due to not being able to commit to the time/dates), however, I read the text in bold in the first page of the article and immediately thought it was saying there were 5000 applicants all trying to get a slot on the STCC grid, which frankly anyone here knows is bullshit, IMO that statement was deliberately designed to be deceptive and if not strictly wrong is no better than the typical biased writing in ASS. I think it's fairly hypocritical that this kind of statement is made by the same people that are calling for unbiased sim magazines.

I was hoping LFS could set a precedent for unbiased non-deceptive articles in ASS, instead it has followed the standard ASS format.

@Jakg - IMO your post dramatically reduces the credibility of the side of the argument you're presenting.

Quote from ajp71 :

I like the STCC and was originally signed up to be competing in it (but cancelled due to not being able to commit to the time/dates), however, I read the text in bold in the first page of the article and immediately thought it was saying there were 5000 applicants all trying to get a slot on the STCC grid, which frankly anyone here knows is bullshit, IMO that statement was deliberately designed to be deceptive and if not strictly wrong is no better than the typical biased writing in ASS. I think it's fairly hypocritical that this kind of statement is made by the same people that are calling for unbiased sim magazines.

i agree, and just had this same conversation with Sam, however i HIGHLY doubt these were Beckies words, more like creative journalism

ajp, as I'm absolutely sure you're fully aware - you must be, you read the article - the CONTENT of the article , i.e. Becky's words, makes it quite clear where those licence numbers come from. It is in NO way misleading.

The preface of the article, written by Bob Simmerman, I agree doesn't actually communicate the CONTENT accurately. It's unreasonable to blame Becky, or anyone representing the STCC, for Bob Simmerman's error, but if you insist on continuing to try there's little anyone can do except remind you that you're not being reasonable.

And I believe Jak's comments were directed very specifically at duke_toaster for trolling, not you.

Quote from ajp71 :

II like the STCC and was originally signed up to be competing in it (but cancelled due to not being able to commit to the time/dates), however, I read the text in bold in the first page of the article and immediately thought it was saying there were 5000 applicants all trying to get a slot on the STCC grid, which frankly anyone here knows is bullshit, IMO that statement was deliberately designed to be deceptive and if not strictly wrong is no better than the typical biased writing in ASS. I think it's fairly hypocritical that this kind of statement is made by the same people that are calling for unbiased sim magazines.

I agree.

For clarification, I have no vendetta against the STCC or any associate of it. However, claiming that it has 5000 members is untrue as that is from a public server system which most drivers are doing for fun.