I like some others can agree with some of the review. Good on Richard for writing it and coming here to discuss it too, I think I would be hiding somewhere right now

There is a lot of critism thrown at the rear-drives in LFS. Now, I'm no *fast* racer, but I'm average-to-quick in most of the cars (given the right amount of practice). As for the race cars, I havent really done a huge amount of milage in - but I do know this about the RWD cars: The GT and the FOX are absolutely brilliant.

The feeling you get when the GT is on the absolute limit is brilliant, you get that noise of the tyres peeling (not the correct phrase, but youll know what i mean if youve done it), the way you feel like your in complete control of the rear end. Thats got to be a Sim with some proper physics doing that. Although, as Ive said in another thread, im no physics expert.

I dont know Richard, but maybe he's done degrees in physics....

Another thing is this, perhaps all racing games have "tamed" the handling of the cars as they have been too lairy. Do we want the same thing to happen to LFS? I happened to find some of the cars a little tail happy in GTR sometimes too... I'm not sure anyway... as I said, Im no expert..

I have read many reviews of real life cars, and alot with 500hp+ and RWD are difficult to keep in a straight line, maybe thats what LFS is showing us?

Hell I dont know, gives us something to talk about while Scawen goes quiet though eh

This guy, Richard forgots about the nature of LFS, this is a game to play online, I know, its really boring try to drive a nice and clean race with the AI, therefore, you can drive on the web...

Well I think most things have already been covered by others, and I'll say that I think the review seems a reasonably balanced effort but one that gets disparaging in a couple of areas which don't appear justified to a regular LFS driver.

The price is one thing that seems to be increasingly used against LFS - the idea of paying £12 per release is somehow "expensive". Of course it all depends on how much you play and consequently appreciate the product, but as already mentioned, £24 is simply not expensive for a continuously developed product with personal involvement/accountability from the devs within the community. Look at what many large publishers do with all manner of sports and simulations titles - crank out the same stuff every year as a full price, new title; but with each release (usually) offering far fewer new features/content than the transition from S1 to S2. Whether or not one enjoys LFS enough to get the most out of S2 doesn't change the fact that the S1/2/3 licensing system represents far better value for the content and improvements than the yearly, almost identical releases of the traditional publishing system. From my own experience with LFS, I haven't played anything this much for ages and as such I think it's underpriced compared to the enjoyment per pound ratio of whatever is on the shelves in GAME.

Then there's the physics issues - of which there are certainly many. Now I'll be the first to hold my hand up and admit that I haven't driven a 500bhp GTR car on cold tyres around a track so I have no idea what it should feel like, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if I struggle to stop it swapping ends on me, until I invent a time machine and start karting and racing from the age of seven like most pro drivers have. But while the physics (and especially the aero & low speed grip - the two most prominent current failings) are definitely in need of improvement, they are at least 100% consistent. I don't like the way the XRR suddenly loses the back end in a steady low speed corner for absolutely no reason, but after familiarising/learning the car some more, the driving or setup adjustments required to limit it make perfect sense and the car reacts accordingly to whatever changes you make to it. It doesn't react in the right way each time, but it reacts in the same way each time; which imho is one of the things that contributes to the immense accessibility of LFS.

I was more disappointed to note that the review fell into the same failing as most other reviews of LFS S2 Alpha, imho. Apart from a token mention at the beginning and end, with the occasional sole reference inbetween, there's a striking lack of caveats in the review regarding the fact that it's not even a beta product yet, it's an alpha. There are several (justified) criticisms of LFS in the review that could/should have been accompanied by the fact that this feature is widely expected to be improved upon by the final release. As it stands, a reader who is less knowledgeable about the concept of LFS may be left thinking that the final S2 for £24 is going to have pretty much the same failings. This is possible, and it's impossible to predict the future, but it seems highly unlikely.

As for the tracks, I thought it was generally known that the newer tracks were squarely aimed at the faster cars in S2. If the reviewer considers South City in a GTR/open-wheeled car to be a moderate challenge, then I'd suggest that the reviewer's driving skill is way in excess of the average racer. If it wasn't for the wide, sweeping turns of Aston, Kyoto and Westhill, more folk would find it prohibitively challenging to get a race in - a far higher proportion of people would just be crashing all the time. And vice versa, if you drive the original/road cars around the longer configurations of the new tracks, the high speed corners do indeed become pointless and dull. But to make such an accusation would, imho, be a case of missing the point of the new tracks.

If you pair the tracks/configurations with the according car classes (which is just what they do in real life - F1 cars at Silverstone use the full length, relatively fast circuit while most of the other more humdrum stuff uses a much shorter track with tighter corners) then I happen to think the track design is superb, especially if you consider the rationale behind each circuit. Aston, for example, is clearly a fairly historic circuit and as such is never going to have too many slow, technical sections. I don't ever recall this working against Monza, Silverstone, or Spa-Francorchamps. All the tracks have their defining features for me, which makes them all appeal in their own way - from the sunny sand and palm trees of Fern Bay to the dark walls of South City, via two dozen hilly circuits set in middle England's countryside. The biggest failing with the current track selection is not that they're dull to drive round, it's that the environments are dull because they're not different enough. We have Blackwood, Aston, and Westhill. If S2 ever includes any more circuits, we do not need another hilly, sweeping British track with a palette of greens and greys and browns. There needs to be more to capture people's imaginations - I don't mean abandoning LFS's realistic colours and designs, but with more obvious variety of locations to appeal to more people. A circuit in the dusty U.S. midwest; or among the heat and jarring concrete of the urbanised areas of the U.S. west coast; or a punishing Canadian circuit with a lot of water about. Or something obviously Scandinavian, with a low sun peeking over the top of thick, dark forests; or a chilly, bleak, technical circuit that's clearly identified by East European architecture of the nearby town.

Phew, that's me done.

wow

Strobe, I did say it was an alpha both in the intro and the end, and said that I will look back on s2 final when it is released. On the cost, I actually said it might seem exspensive, because you are buying into a wip game, it costs as much as a full release game, most are now £24.99.

I did pay £24 and I didn't feel I got value for money over S1 which is why I included that in the review.

I reviewed LFS as I do all games I review, for what it is trying to be, LFS isn't like other games on the market, so I will review differently, you cannot say compare a score of GTL with LFS, because of the huge difference in the titles.

LFS got an average score, not because its worse than GTR, not because its worse than GTL, or rfactor, or any other sim, it got an average score because in its current state Live For Speed is failing its self, on many levels, and these where stated in the review.

Overall I just don't think LFS is as good as it should/could be, and the score reflects that, if LFS had the more complete physics, sound and some visual improvements the score would be higher, we are talking about a 7 which is where at this stage I feel LFS should be.

Quote from axus :

I'm not sure, but I think it means that we are really cool and we are more right than Richard Towler.

Actually I believe it means you are the 3 slowest people to understand that by "feel of the sim" Richard doesn't mean "feel of the ffb through the wheel" but rater "feel of immersion the whole game that is lacking because it doesn't feature good enough sounds and has computerized starts and doesn't allow for a full race package with practice-qual-race"

You see that kind of thing. "Maybe your controller settings are wrong" will not change anything in the fact there is a lack of immersion feel. When you're in the racecars in LFS, you don't feel like you're in a racecar. That's the "feel" in question. Richard is not talking about the feel through his steering wheel.

Quote from RichardTowler :

we are talking about a 7 which is where at this stage I feel LFS should be.

And considering LFS in its S2 final stage would be in version 0.6, I would like to point out that giving it a 7/10 score (being 70%, 0.7) would be like saying LFS is outdoing itself.
However, for that LFS would need some graphics updates, namely the cockpits of the racecars, textured tire sidewalls and wheels, bolts and misc stuff like that, then sounds and fixes in the physics where applies (in no particular order, as long as they all are before S2 final).

I think the review would be better without a score at all. Why did you give a score? Obviously the point you are making here isn't clearly enough made in the review, otherwise you wouldn't be here explaining it.

He gave it a score... a score for how S2 (in its current development stage) feels to him. He said so at then end of post #25.

It is not a score for S2 final (obviously), he's said that many times already.

Quote from deggis :

I think the review would be better without a score at all. Why did you give a score? Obviously the point you are making here isn't clearly enough made in the review, otherwise you wouldn't be here explaining it.

actually its because people have not read the review and I don't mind discussing it in further detail.

Quote from Nick_ll :

Actually I believe it means you are the 3 slowest people to understand that by "feel of the sim" Richard doesn't mean "feel of the ffb through the wheel" but rater "feel of immersion the whole game that is lacking because it doesn't feature good enough sounds and has computerized starts and doesn't allow for a full race package with practice-qual-race"

You see that kind of thing. "Maybe your controller settings are wrong" will not change anything in the fact there is a lack of immersion feel. When you're in the racecars in LFS, you don't feel like you're in a racecar. That's the "feel" in question. Richard is not talking about the feel through his steering wheel.

Oh but it could also mean you're the 3 guys who defend LFS the most without asking you the right question of "what could we improve here" (as opposed to "let's lick to ass no matter how bad it tastes").

I feel very much immersed in any car I drive in LFS which is more than I can say for GTR or any of the other big titles out there. I do not deny that there is room for improvement but I feel that the fact that LFS is among the best in terms of immersion into the car is ommited in the review. (What I am trying to say is that despite not being perfect LFS is better than most and still being worked on.) I do not lick ass and have VERY high expectations for the final release of S2 which is why I believe it is being treated unfairly.

Ok let's wait then. But I'll save that post of yours and quote you on it when you say "I'm waiting for S3" when your high expectations for S2 are not met in S2 final.

That said, I'll stand corrected if the devs prove me wrong and do actually improve both physics, sounds AND graphics before S2 final, which I doubt they will somehow, unless S2 final is in another year's time.

Quote from Nick II :

But I'll save that post of yours and quote you on it when you say "I'm waiting for S3"

Arn't we all

Ok I'll remove that comment. I prefer the discussion to continue in a civilized manner.

I'll just say that I fully agree with what is said in the review, including the score.

The post I made just after the one you quoted might be more interesting to quote for the discussion tho.

Quote from Nick_ll :

Ok let's wait then. But I'll save that post of yours and quote you on it when you say "I'm waiting for S3" when your high expectations for S2 are not met in S2 final.

That said, I'll stand corrected if the devs prove me wrong and do actually improve both physics, sounds AND graphics before S2 final, which I doubt they will somehow, unless S2 final is in another year's time.

Do you honestly think that there is that much work that needs to be done? We are talking physics - ~3months perhaps. In the mean time Eric could be working (and maybe is already) on higher resolution textures and more detailed car interiors. I have a sneaky suspision that the textures released with Alpha aren't the full size ones that Eric has because they do not even include MIP maps (despite the existing MIP map support) and they have just been thrown in there to save size in the release. (This is only a guess). Then comes Scawen's part in the graphics - the implementation of DX9 shaders which also cannot take that long, my guess would be a month or so. Sounds would also take another 1 month or so (not a huge amount of work IMHO, once you have good samples). Small features and updates that have been requested could take some more time but they are stuff that goes at the end as I understand it and before them we could have a great physics, sound and graphics engine. Then comes BETA and if ALPHA is anything to go by, BETA will hardly have any bugs that need fixing before the final is released. If I were the devs, this is how I would allocate my time because this is what the community seems to expect from S2 Final. I do not expect them to follow what I have said but this is my guess as to the path they will take.

We'll only know until we get reports from the devs on what they actually are doing. If not... it will just be another guessing game like in pre-S2 days. And those got many assumptions in the wrong direction, terrible. Now, it seems the devs have a huge burden on their shoulders to make us something special, since S2 is not completely what we thought it would be like... that... and they note it is not S2 final (which is kind of reassuring in a way to know that this bare-boned-S2-alpha version is not the full version)

HOWEVER, it also shows HOW much progress they made for almost a years waiting time, which makes me think that until we get anything special and high-quality, or fixed physics, it feels to me it won't be very soon at all, unless we get a peep from the devs on a plan, what S2 will have, something! :zombie: The goal of S2 is has never been completely told to us, so we still linger, wondering if anything will be told... so we have more hope....

They are only 3 developers, specifically Scawen doing all the main coding himself and Eric doing visual aspects of it... so it is dependant on them. They probably know there is no rush, no deadline, but hopefully they understand that other simulations are rapidly casting a larger shadow on ours, which leaves us in these kinds of discussions... "Will S2 final be a hit or failure??" --- Arghhh, this kind of pain of not knowing has always been with us, I just wonder when we get our next orgasmic jump and hoot sessions when something special comes out for S2.

My holidays would be happy if I got a present from the devs, like the MRT last year

How did you arrive at your estimates for development time of DX9 shaders, physics improvements, sound and so on? Have you personal experience of doing these things and an intimate knowledge of the existing LFS codebase?

As far as I'm aware, none of us here are capable of making anything more than a wild guess at how long these things will take to develop.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

How did you arrive at your estimates for development time of DX9 shaders, physics improvements, sound and so on? Have you personal experience of doing these things and an intimate knowledge of the existing LFS codebase?

As far as I'm aware, none of us here are capable of making anything more than a wild guess at how long these things will take to develop.

The guess for the physics came based on something Scawen said when asked about patch Q and why it doesn't feature physics updates. The DX9 shaders were a bit of a blind guess. The remeaining sound effects as I understand will be sampled, so no complex coding involved - just if this, then play this with this pitch bend and frequency increase and so on.

Well if LFS makes the timeline you are dreaming up Axus, that sounds great to me. In the end we can only wait and see.

To the review, while it did comment (and rightly-so) on the poorer sides of LFS, I don't think it commented enough of the better sides. There are no mentioned of the greatly improved physics, pit stops, or online driver changes that are now possible with S2.

Oh, and as before, I still hate the "pointless left/right turns" bit for the new tracks! I knew I'd read that before somewhere. I fail to see what is so different between the tracks in LFS and other games (apart from them actually having been built... but we're hoping an eccentric billionaire will sort that bit out for us ).

And finally, as for the RWD cars handling very spinny, I can't agree there. I've just started giving my friend lessons with LFS, using my wheel and pedals, and after a few hours practise he's LOVING the LX4 and it's sweet handling. He's not fast yet, but for someone who's never played race sims before I think that shows LFS in a good light. He was using my Easy Race sets though, I think it would be beneficial for better default sets in LFS (which certainly don't help in giving first impressions).

Quote from axus :

The guess for the physics came based on something Scawen said when asked about patch Q and why it doesn't feature physics updates. The DX9 shaders were a bit of a blind guess.

I don't know... If S2 is done and looking polished in six months I'll be very pleased, if not I won't be too surprised.

Quote from axus :

The remeaining sound effects as I understand will be sampled, so no complex coding involved - just if this, then play this with this pitch bend and frequency increase and so on.

I think the synthed engine noises could do with more work too, add a couple more oscillators for bits rattling or generate harmonics at certain rates to represent sympathetic vibrations from other bits of the car, maybe mix in different waveforms when the engine's damaged or in an uncomfortable rev range and so on.

The review is mostly fair. It may have the best driving experience, but it des not have the best racing experience. I dont feel like I'm about to start a important race , i'm just tooling around with some other people.

Have you played call of duty2? Its total sensory overload, you almost feel like your there.
This is what lfs could do with, its very hardcore and just about the car physics at the moment.

Lfs does not need to sell its soul in order to give a better experience.

I still love it to bits though.

The underlying message I get from that review is "don't buy LFS, it's crappy and a rip off".

I think many people just don't realise what they have here. LFS is not just a piece of software. How many of you have gleaned value and enjoyment simply from being a part of the process, watching LFS evolve and develop? Even without driving a single lap LFS offers so much interaction and diverse interest that no other title ever has or is ever likely to. And the devs have stated quite clearly from the beginning what their process and goals were likely to be, including the allowance for delays and developmental evolution.

I've been getting my money's worth since way before I even shelled out one single cent for this sim. I don't see it as a "game" and I can't compare it with any software I've ever purchased. It could be argued that LFS is the only sim, since none of the other "sims" are even attempting to create a comprehensive physics model and all lack the philosophy that Scawen and Co. have built this project on. Yes, there are a few in the works that may show promise, but recent titles like GTRse and roflFactor do nothing to raise hopes about future sims.

LFS is the future of race sims. It is not a simulation, it is a simulator. LFS has very few peers and perhaps the only title that even deserves to be compared to it is our old mate GPL, which lacks the sophistication of LFS in every aspect, but considering its age it really was quite an achievement.

What really boggles the mind though, is how anyone who appreciates and understands the goals of LFS would go out of their way to paint it in such a negative light. Constructive feedback is all well and good, but this review is just damaging in my opinion. It almost seems like an attempt to chide the devs into making changes based on that review, which would be even more astounding considering that most of the problems mentioned have already been considered by the devs (many of them long ago) as most of us already know and as has been discussed ad nauseum. So I have to ask: what is this review supposed to achieve?

The big saving grace for me personally is that I don't give a rat's bum who likes or buys LFS because I know it is the pioneer of true race sims. If Papy could have developed GPL when PCs were as capable as today I'm sure they would have gone much further than they did. I can assume this because it is obvious that they were avoiding the arcade model like the plague and going for a true simulator rather than an arcadish simulation.

There is only one online race simulator, it is very inexpensive and represents amazing value for money, it is under development and continues to improve in every way. I don't mind if it takes years to complete, what a ride it has been so far!

wow!! well said!! can i use part of that in my sig??

fairly harsh, but generally balanced and valid, review I thought. Clearly the good bits just aren't good enough for this reviewer
The rwd physics issues in lfs are largely able to be corrected with setup, but the setups that do fix them are not setups you'd find on any 'real' road going car, so there seem to be clear flaws there.
A little more time in the game, or online racing, may have given a better judgement for the sound. It's true that it doesn't *sound* amazing, but it *works* very well, echo's, rumbles, pitch variations... it all makes sense and adds to the experience. It just lacks the 'I'm driving a stonking v8 race car' feel...

Gun, you might want to open your eyes and close your anus. But seriously, with that post you have just given yourself away as a typical 'nothing can touch what I like, I'am 100% right and the other is 100% wrong' that is so often seen in communities. You also try to distance yourself from the 'rest' at the bottom of your post, which is another typical thing to do, as a bonus you name GTR and rfactor differently

If you think the only thing you can compare to LFS is GPL, you really have not lived, I'd say LFS can learn from even GT4 on the PS2. I'd also say comparing GPL means you are one of the old elite GPL players.

I'm not rating what LFS could be, I'am rating what LFS IS TODAY, that is the whole point of the review and as the development progresses I will keep coming back and doing further articles on the website about it.

I'm not just a sim racer, i play all types of games, and I can see how far sim racing in general lags behind, racing sims are still quake 2 era, while unreal 3 engine is about to give it to everyone in the face, it is that far behind.