Hello, LFS'ers!

I have a question, I do not know if it is valid or not. I wanted to discuss something that I do not know if it was discussed many times here, but please, let's avoid misunderstandings, ok?

Why the developers of Live for Speed - Scawen, Eric and Victor - do not recruit more people to develop the online racing simulator?

There are many people with talent and competent to make the portion of each in the simulator, everything to gain faster improvements, for they are not recruited? The development team of Live for Speed could be hundreds of people!

Is there any personal "why" for this?

Thank you for reading my post, just want an answer to my questions. I do not want to create any misunderstanding.

Thanks!

Because they don't want to.

I think it is because they prefer to do it their way. Meaning, they just want to be those 3 buddies that making the game, and if you have a bigger team it probally will not be a as much personal project like it is now.

i think because if u have hundreds of ppl working.. some might want to add stuff and some not that stuff but their own stuff and there would be a lot of misunderstanding and no communication... and imagine everyone would like to drive the fbmw02... but in this case it was just 1 guy.. not hundreds..

Quote from The Very End :

I think it is because they prefer to do it their way. Meaning, they just want to be those 3 buddies that making the game, and if you have a bigger team it probally will not be a as much person project like it is now.

Thanks for the answer.

It sounds like a good reason. But is that the transition between the patches would not be faster with 5 more people helping in the development of the simulator?

Quote from hugoluis :

Thanks for the answer.

It sounds like a good reason. But is that the transition between the patches would not be faster with 5 more people helping in the development of the simulator?

Ah but there is 5 people! Don't forget Geraldine and little Leo!

I don`t think so, because then they would have to agree to eachothers what to implent etc etc, everyone has different veiws on things. And with more people - more veiws, more to discuss and it would be the same either way And it wouldn`t, as mention before, be that personal project.

Quote from niall09 :

Ah but there is 5 people! Don't forget Geraldine and little Leo!

Sure! Why I would forget? Hehehe ...

What I want to say is the "Scaviergele" recruit 5 more people, adding a total of 10 people in the development of the simulator.

Ok, they don't want or they want to develop following their own ways, but the LFS is still TOO delayed regarding the RACE 07, for example. The LFS only has the NICE³ multiplayer, but look at the physics! It needs to be improved faster. For example, I abandoned LFS and went race on GTR2, it's much more developed (physically) that the LFS. The rain, the time, the temperature... When we'll have it on LFS? On 2009? On 2009 the Simbin will launch GTR3, and the Blimey are launching "Ferrari Project" next year, look at the graphics, the physics, and maybe the better multiplayer (LFS has the B.E.S.T multiplayer I've ever seen BY WHILE).

I agree with the friend above, 5 people will not finish this game and change it, becoming a SIMULATOR, too fast than the other companies.

...

It is true with a larger team patches and complete games could be churned out much quicker than the current time between major developments. They'd also be buggy, loose all sense of direction and not last as long. There are few big games that are actually any good and lots that end up in the bin. Couple with this the fact that LFS satisfies a niche market, and that with a larger team and a need for more revenue would inevitably have to take the mainstream GTR/RACE approach. Alternatively one could just take the approach of putting some new polish on a prehistoric game engine and getting the community to make the content for you whilst you sit around making money

@CTito - I'd disagree that GTR has better developed physics, there may be lots of nice effects and neat touches but what do they matter when the underlying tire physics, the Achilles heel of pretty much every racing simulator, are awful?

I don't think they're too afraid of being left behind are they? They continue to work at their own pace. The very fact that they have not changed anything is an indication that the way they are doing things is successful for them. If they thought that by the time LFS is finished it will be 5 years behind the competition, then maybe they would address that problem. They haven't yet, so we can assume they're doing just fine.

Quote from ajp71 :

It is true with a larger team patches and complete games could be churned out much quicker than the current time between major developments. They'd also be buggy, loose all sense of direction and not last as long. There are few big games that are actually any good and lots that end up in the bin. Couple with this the fact that LFS satisfies a niche market, and that with a larger team and a need for more revenue would inevitably have to take the mainstream GTR/RACE approach. Alternatively one could just take the approach of putting some new polish on a prehistoric game engine and getting the community to make the content for you whilst you sit around making money

That was the information I really wanted to have. Thank you for the answer.

overall they just wanna make their own game.

They dont just wanna get filthy rich

Quote from ajp71 :

@CTito - I'd disagree that GTR has better developed physics, there may be lots of nice effects and neat touches but what do they matter when the underlying tire physics, the Achilles heel of pretty much every racing simulator, are awful?

None simulator is perfect, NONE. The GTR2 has its Achilles heel in the multiplayer. The tires, really, are not perfect, but they are very close. Only the visual effects are so... ugly, the suspension and tires of GTR2, seen by the external view, are very ugly. They don't deformate currently and don't have many effects. Another Achilles heel is that when you stay at 2 wheels and turn 180º (don't remember the noun).

LFS will grow, yeah, will grow, but at this speed, I don't think so that we'll be a simulator before 2009. LFS is DX8, isn't it?

Sorry for the English errors.

do you mean beta testers? they are chosen by Scavier himself. you have to be chosen.
we are all alpha testers though.

I think that the direction that took this thread is wrong... you are comparing... hmm may be Atom with BMW... yes.

The atom is not nice, has nothing, only a seat and two pair of wheels. BUT the atom runs fast, really lightweight, and IMO it's one of the cars that are meant for racing. This represents LFS, being the engine the physics, but the exterior being the graphics. Some will like it because of being simple (like me) and others will just hate it. Also, if the Atom has any problem, you'll need a lot of money to repair it, and a lot of time for getting the spare parts (lets say the Patches)

On the other hand you've got BMW (as SimBin), with a variety of cars (games). They are really beautiful IMO, and have a really good performance. But they've got flaws, as not being too lightweight... and of course the Atom is faster (LFS physics are much better). You can easily get the spare parts (fast patches)... To sell more most BMW's have got Automatic Transmission (like the driving aids in SimBin games).

Another thing, Atoms are made by a really small company while BMW has a worldwide business running.

And well, it's your choice... A big company making a lot of cars bought by anyone with money, or you can have the Atom, wich you'll never see unless you are really lucky, or you really like it and look for it.

You've got SimBin comercial, big games, with a lot of fancy things and details, Driving Aids, and Licensed stuff, or you can get LFS, the simulator that almost no one knows, that keeps the core of racing, and that is reserved for real driving lovers.

the Atom

Quote from Racer556 :

and of course the Atom is faster (LFS physics are much better).

At this point I disagree. Your comparison was very nice, but you was unhappy at this point.

I've never seen a small car (XFG) that simply DOESN'T TURN, only DRIFT. Take an Opel Corsa or Ford Fiesta or Punto and see. We can't compare.

Quote from niall09 :

Ah but there is 5 people! Don't forget Geraldine and little Leo!

Indeed, little Leo is currently testing the patch right now.

I can't wait to see the new car, with Mickey Mouse stickers stuck all over the wheel and dash

Quote from CTito :

I've never seen a small car (XFG) that simply DOESN'T TURN, only DRIFT. Take an Opel Corsa or Ford Fiesta or Punto and see. We can't compare.

That is not a physics problem, it is a current unrealistic setup option that allows the XFG, or most of the road cars to drive like we do in LFS. We have too much fine adjustment in the setup options.

You spoke earlier of better physics in GTR2, then list "The rain, the time, the temperature... " These are not physics variables, but environmental variables. Yes, the physics need to accomodate the environmental variables, but until Scawen is ready to code and implement the environment, we can not judge how the physics will react to the environment.

We are talking racing simulators. What is the absolute most important aspect of a racing simulator? They physics and how representative of how racing a car it is. If you don't have that perfect, then the rain, time, temperature, bling bling graphics, etc, mean absolutely nothing. Working on perfecting the physics first like LFS is the way it should be done compared to getting ok physics, then working on bling bling to sell more copies and release a new version each year of slight physics improvements and more bling bling for more money.

How long has the GTR series been in developement? As far as I can remember, both GTR and rFactor was released shortly after NR2003 was stopped, just as LFS has been. No one of the 3 main racing sims are further ahead in developement than the other. It is the areas the developing is going that is the difference in them. LFS concentrates on strictly the physics where GTR focuses on some physics, but more fancy bling to get it in stores and in the consumers hands for profit. rFactor, really don't know where they fall since you don't hear anything other than how horrible the mods are for it.

Quote from CTito :

At this point I disagree. Your comparison was very nice, but you was unhappy at this point.

I've never seen a small car (XFG) that simply DOESN'T TURN, only DRIFT. Take an Opel Corsa or Ford Fiesta or Punto and see. We can't compare.

A lot of depends on car setup and control inputs. Please show us some examples(single player replays) where you think LFS is not accurate.

I wonder how many of these Corsas and Fiestas are driven with locked differential and suspension setups as used in LFS (because the setup options aren't restricted yet, respectively component damage due to extreme setup abuse isn't modelled yet).

Tbh, I much rather have a physics engine that gives believable and coherent results with a few exploitable quirks due to being not completed yet, rather than one that greets me with fake FF, fake unrecoverable spins and so much fake in general slapped on it to mask the awful physics engine- or the awfully inaccurate content beneath it that causes the (maybe even somewhat capable) physics engine to output such crap results.

But we all know that my words aren't going to change your opinion, nor are yours going to change mine, so who cares. It'd be interesting to see how GTR2 handles low powered road cars, though.

Quote from CTito :

I've never seen a small car (XFG) that simply DOESN'T TURN, only DRIFT.

Yeah, this very much depends on setup. If you set up an XFG to understeer then it'll understeer. Roadgoing cars are generally setup to understeer for the most part. If you set an XFG up to be quick, then it'll be quite different to your typical street setup. I see a lot of front-wheel drive cars at autox events that are setup to be almost constantly on the verge of oversteering and they are very quick, and yes, quite differently setup from your regular street cars. It's the same in LFS.

As for hiring people, this has been answered many times...the LFS devs are doing it their way (and it's working pretty well so far!) and will continue to do so for as long as it suits them.

Quote from Michael Denham :

Roadgoing cars are generally setup to understeer for the most part.

It's because the car manufacturers think that it is easier for the average driver to recover from FWD understeer then FWD oversteer. Also, it depends on the driver as well as the setup of the car. It depends whether you are talking about a steady rate of turn, with no throttle or braking. If you physically force the car into understeer/oversteer, then that's what it'll do.

Yeah. That's a good point about forcing the car into oversteer too. You're more likely to see quick transitions with the kind of driving you do in LFS/real life racing/autox than on the street, so even stock cars could appear to oversteer more in LFS than on the street in real life. But then get a car set up really taily in LFS and combine that with quick inputs and transitions, and yeah you're going to get some crazy oversteer

Would be a good reason if they thought about it this way.

More people helping in the development = More ppl to pay/more ppl to share the money with.

More people helping in the development = more disagreements

More people helping in the development = Final version might come too fast with some things forgotten.

The true reason, I think, is that they want to keep it a project between eachother. (I think it was said somewere in this thread)

never change a winning team