the other side of argument is that by using fantasy tracks, the devs can ensure the tracks provide good racing

The problem you have nowadays is that everybody wants to be paid for everything. For the people that actually own the track, they see that supplying the tracks dimensions, elevation points etc etc as a selling point. Obviously they understand that people want to be able to race Brands, Snetty, Silverstone etc etc in Games, so charge an absolute fortune for the game developers to aquire a license.

Its wrong I know, as these to companies "should" be working together. like I scratch your back if you scratch mine sort of thing.

Same with Cars. Now alot of people complained that **cough NFSU cough ** didnt have damage model in them. Well thats because the Car Manufactuers didn't want to see there cars damaged Whats the point of that? So I am guessing it will be the same with LFS.

At least this way ( fictional cars and fictional tracks ) the devs are in every right to do with them what they please, which in turn gives us a sense of realism. I mean, would u like to drive say a real car around LFS with no damage model? didn't think so.

Last point on the real tracks issue. If real tracks started to be apart of LFS, then how many threads would there be with people saying "This elevation is wrong, this corner is to sharpe, this that, the other " With Eric's designed tracks, we can just look in amazment and enjoy the ride.

Quote from sinbad :

"Cote d'Azure" circuit in Gran Turismo 3 was just that (Monaco street circuit). I suppose licenses for street courses can be worked around if you are prepared to name the circuit something else.

Yep, I guess if they'd called it the "F1 Monaco Grand Prix Circuit", they may have fallen foul of Bernie. If they bought all the other circuit licences, it might have been a nice relief for them not to have to splash out for the Monaco track. All they had to do was rename it. I'd have no problem racing on the "LFS Monaco Circuit" or even "LFS Goes To Monte Carlo", since Monaco is Monaco, like London is London. Who's gonna sue?

of course when you think about it the info about elevations, gradients, distances etc in the uk at least are not the intelectual property of the circuits but in fact if they actually belong to anyone it is the ordinance survey, i assume you could even extract the info from a sufficient hi res google earth image though i've noticed their spot elevation figures can be off a bit

Quote from SamH :

I'd have no problem racing on the "LFS Monaco Circuit" or even "LFS Goes To Monte Carlo", since Monaco is Monaco, like London is London. Who's gonna sue?

Every Bugger out there that wanted to, thats the problem with today's world. You only need to sneeze in the wrong direction for somebody to pull a law suit on you.

I bet you would have to pay just for using the word Monaco, won't suprise me

In the end, I think what this all boils down to is cost, and beleive me to, it will cost a shed load just to incorporate 1 track, let alone anymore. Companies like Codies have millions to push into these sort of things. SC and Co doesn't, and to be honest, I am glad.

Quote from Fordman :

In the end, I think what this all boils down to is cost, and beleive me to, it will cost a shed load just to incorporate 1 track, let alone anymore. Companies like Codies have millions to push into these sort of things. SC and Co doesn't.

How would it cost alot? You will get free licences from tracks that aren't as famous. Only costs involved are getting videos and photos of textures and the circuit.

I don't really care about the tracks being real or not personally, as long
as they are realistic. No NFS floating in a neon land kinda stuff thank you.
So far, LFS has very realistic tracks and who knows, they could very
well be part of actual roads we don't know of. There WAS this thread
about where Blackwood was...notice the sign on the overpass

As for cars, there could be a compromise. If LFS had a few generic shaped
cars where the whole body could be skinned, the community could make
look-a-likes. Although the XR has been dressed in many suits, some
looking quite close to actual cars, there are issues with the rear
lights/plate making it close to impossible to make it look like anything but
an XR. If these details could be skinned over, the possibilities would be
much greater. Imo of course.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Please Micha... stop with those noncence posts please..

1. you don't have the source. So you can't tell if the physics are really that accurate as they're praised to be.
2. Since you can't comply to 1 stop telling me to post "nonCenCe".

pff...

Quote from micha1980de :

1. you don't have the source. So you can't tell if the physics are really that accurate as they're praised to be.
2. Since you can't comply to 1 stop telling me to post "nonCenCe".

pff...

It's not a question if it is accurate or not.. Of course it is not accurate as the real life, what do you think?? Simulations only try their best to be as real life.
And also other factors are there to consider... You would push in a simulation more than the best real life driver maybe would, and so it can never be identical..
But, your "reason" why there is no real life tracks in LFS, is just.... i don't know..

Quote from Boris Lozac :

But, your "reason" why there is no real life tracks in LFS, is just.... i don't know..

I do. His implication is that LFS physics would be uncovered as being poor. It was a nonsense post because, as has rightly been pointed out many times over, the cars (with 2 exceptions) are fictional, as are all of the tracks. So his post can't be based on any meaningful evidence, and therefore can only be interpreted as unnecessarily inflamatory/argumentative.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

...your "reason" why there is no real life tracks in LFS, is just.... i don't know..

Read my first post and the bulb should give some light...

Quote from SamH :

I do. His implication is that LFS physics would be uncovered as being poor. It was a nonsense post because, as has rightly been pointed out many times over, the cars (with 2 exceptions) are fictional, as are all of the tracks. So his post can't be based on any meaningful evidence, and therefore can only be interpreted as unnecessarily inflamatory/argumentative.

Exactly... but not one single game has perfect physics, so other games physics are uncovered long time ago for that matter..

Quote from SamH :

I do. His implication is that LFS physics would be uncovered as being poor. It was a nonsense post because, as has rightly been pointed out many times over, the cars (with 2 exceptions) are fictional, as are all of the tracks. So his post can't be based on any meaningful evidence, and therefore can only be interpreted as unnecessarily inflamatory/argumentative.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Quote from SamH :

...It was a nonsense post because, as has rightly been pointed out many times over...

Pointed out by who? The users? Some physician?
So who, except the devs, has the basis to tell if lfs is doing the job right?
To be sarcastic, i'd have to say that it isn't "complete" (not refering to the alpha state)and therefore it can't be "correct" and will never be.

Quote from micha1980de :

How do you come to this conclusion?

How can you not come to this conclusion?

Quote from micha1980de :

Pointed out by who? The users? Some physician?
So who, except the devs, has the basis to tell if lfs is doing the job right?
To be sarcastic, i'd have to say that it isn't "complete" (not refering to the alpha state)and therefore it can't be "correct" and will never be.

No it isn't complete. Yes, Scawen has said his next project is the physics. No, this has absolutely nothing to do with you being deliberately abbrasive and obstructive.

There's no need for you to undermine confidence in LFS by references to the physics engine. It's a work-in-progress. There is no attempt to deceive users, or fool them into thinking that the game physics are perfect by excluding anything "real", which is most definitely how your original post reads.

The explicit intention of the Devs is to create "THE BEST" online racing sim. I personally consider that they're totally on course, whether the physics are imperfect at this stage or not.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I think most of us in the world of sim racing have at least some interest in motorsport. I'm a big fan of most types, and yet I don't see a great deal of value in actually having real tracks. It might look more attractive to a new buyer, but in terms of racing quality and immersion what REAL difference does it make if your on a real track or a made up track? The racing will be just as good, if not better on a made up track, it's cheaper and less prone to inaccuracies.

OK so let's get to the details here.

Being interested in motorsport maybe you have at some time been to Brands, Oulton, Snet, Silverstone or any other place? Maybe you spent a day there watching the racing from the grandstands, comparing lines, braking points, driving styles between drivers, walking around the track to see different kinds of corners, and maybe witessing some kind of motorsport history in the making if it was a high profile event.

I think most people I would consider racing enthusiasts will have done this kind of thing probably more than once. Now I can't imagine that after such an event anybody would not feel that racing on a virtual Brands, Oulton etc. would be a more "valuable" experience than racing on Fern Bay. Am I wrong?

But you are of course right that the actual racing itself will not really be much different. It's more about atmosphere and feeling.

Quote from SamH :

How can you not come to this conclusion?


No it isn't complete. Yes, Scawen has said his next project is the physics. No, this has absolutely nothing to do with you being deliberately abbrasive and obstructive.

There's no need for you to undermine confidence in LFS by references to the physics engine. It's a work-in-progress. There is no attempt to deceive users, or fool them into thinking that the game physics are perfect by excluding anything "real", which is most definitely how your original post reads.

The explicit intention of the Devs is to create "THE BEST" online racing sim. I personally consider that they're totally on course, whether the physics are imperfect at this stage or not.

1. abbrasive? (sorry my translator can't find this word, and i don't know how to instruct google to translate it for me... (But in general, i think it wasn't nice)

2. you havn't answered to my question

3. if i'd intended to be "disturbing" (thought that was your last post concerning me...) you'd notice.

4. i stated my first post in a little /IRONIC manner.

What i need to pinpoint is none of your business, i thought this is a forum were you can post you opinion, to see you defend the devs work (wich i like too) makes me think about the word fanatic.
Meaning that if you make statements that don't "fit in" you'll get flamed...
(not accepting criticism)
Have the devs said that "the best", or is it your conclusion?

Quote from Vain :

I think for S3 LFS should do the same as with it's cars. Take existing tracks and move parts of them into the game, just too few to be lawsuited to hell .
There are so many great corner-combinations, tricky turns and interesting sections out there that it's a pity LFS has so few of them.

Vain

Between Aston and Kyoto GP I think they've actually covered quite a few of them.

A lot has been discussed here but I'll just voice my thoughts on this.

Overall, LFS can move forward regardless of having real tracks and real cars. At this point, LFS is a stepping stone and at this point, addons and all that other stuff would really not benefit the game itself. If we did have real tracks, sure I'd LOVE to have that (specifically Laguna Seca, Nordschliefe, and Bathurst), but it wouldn't make it incredibly better, it would just be more tracks to choose from. Sure the whole 'fantasy' thing is hard to grasp when you want real cars and tracks.... but for the job the dev team has done on LFS for creating fantasy tracks, it is pretty astounding. Most fantasy race tracks are really not as developed or have the flow that Eric creates in them. Eric does a fine job, and works hard to make his OWN creations... matter of fact, all of this game is the dev's own creation in a sense, and when you do something yourself, that always feels rewarding. Making replicas of real tracks can be just as much work, but they would never have the feel of trying something new or inventive.

So in all, I would love to have real tracks for sure, would take one in a heartbeat.... but in LFS, the experience comes mostly in the driving and Eric presents us with tracks that pretty much include nearly all areas of track design.... some ideas taken from most circuits even.... but still have their uniqueness.

EDIT: And oh, in my opinion, talking about having tracks and thinking the devs would do it is just silly, because I have that feeling in my gut that just says the devs will never make a real track.... they will eventually leave all that addon stuff and fan-driven material to US, and only US. Probably around post-S3 we will see things like this turn up --- they've always noted that any public editors and stuff will eventually come out, so you will see things turn up in the future (maybe 2 years from now). Nobody wants a Racer or Netkar game where tons of crap addons circulate, and that is a good sign, because LFS fans want the best out of a simulation -- I am sure the modding abilities of S3 will be great for the community... it is just in due time

Quote from J.B. :

I think most people I would consider racing enthusiasts will have done this kind of thing probably more than once. Now I can't imagine that after such an event anybody would not feel that racing on a virtual Brands, Oulton etc. would be a more "valuable" experience than racing on Fern Bay. Am I wrong?

But you are of course right that the actual racing itself will not really be much different. It's more about atmosphere and feeling.

Many "race enthusiasts" do not comprehend the underlying form of a particular circuit. They will not be thinking of the difficulties and intracacies of track design. They may not understand safety, the use of ripple strips, bollards, pit location and access etc. They may not realise that the track has been designed (or not) with the topography of the surrounding area in mind. They may not realise that their favourite circuit is impossible to overtake on. They may not appreciate the changing surface and varied textures of the tarmac and how this effects the racing.

Some avid race enthusiasts I have met are only at the track to hear the roar of the engines, drink beer, wishing for someone to please crash in a burning fireball right in front of them, drink some more beer, cheer for their favourite brand of car or driver and generally soak up the atmosphere that one gets at race meetings before settling in to drink some more beer.

So being a race enthusiast doesn't qualify one as having any authority or clear comprehension of the circuit, it's layout and construction, it's usefullness for exciting racing and such. If our budding race enthusiast does have some understanding of a circuit's underlying form perhaps he may appreciate any circuit he tries or studies?

It wouldn't matter if LFS had a Monaco track area, I won't be racing along thinking "oh wow! I'm at Monaco!" because I am not at Monaco. I might as well be racing at South City as far as immersion into a street circuit goes (and I would welcome another street circuit in LFS). Sure, I'd like to try the FOX at Monaco but any tight street circuit will do. LFS is such a great simulator that track simulation is not very important to me. Track design, however, is. Eric's tracks each have a distinct character. The corners and sections he creates are very much like many sections on real tracks. The setting and topography are original. Some tracks are narrower than others, some have long straights others not. Elevation changes, something many tracks lack in real life (to the disspointment of many race drivers) feature throughout LFS tracks. A lot of thought needs to go into track design and that is what we find with LFS. There are small improvements that could be made here and there, as in real life, but what we have is variation and diversity.

It is true that some real tracks have a unique atmosphere generated by location, or history/ nostalgia, and I can only assume that this type of atmosphere is what people crave when they desire real tracks in LFS. Putting aside for a moment that a person may just want to try their nerve tackling Eau Rouge, or thunder through the Bustop or hammer down Conrod Straight, the circuits in question are often favourites for romantic reasons. Modern Manaco, for example, is completely unsuitable for racing of modern F1 cars, yet the race continues to be held every year. There is virtually no overtaking, often the majority of the field doesn't finish the race and safety is an ongoing concern for drivers and spectators alike.

As a driver I will always favour a track that is exciting, challenging, safe and offers opportunities to overtake. As a spectator I want the same outcomes. Real or not, some tracks are well designed and some are not. Since Eric designs great LFS tracks I won't be needing any real ones. If they come, they come. Until then I'm completely satisfied with track development so far in LFS. I'm so satisfied that any addition of real tracks to LFS doesn't induce any feelings of longing or excitement in me at all. The future already looks exciting.

In response to the topic title I say that LFS is moving forward just fine without real tracks and any lack of real tracks will not dilute the appeal of this simulator nor slow its progress.

Different tracks present different challenge. Like Monaco, for example. It is not about being fast throughout the race or being a good passer or getting some fast laps. The Monaco is all about 0 tolerance for errors, similar way like the 'ring. Spa is all for high speeds and good passing, but in more forgiving format. Or Hungaroring is all about technical corners with very little passing. All these tracks present different challenge to the drivers and different drivers have different favourites. Winning in Monaco is something every driver dreams of even the majority don't like. Or so I presume.

I personally like fast tracks with some longer straights and tighter places, like Ky3 or As4, reversed or not. I have always hated Spa for the simple reason that it is the most boring track I've virtually driven. Let it be the GPL, F1 or GTR version. Eric's tracks are good, some even excellent in design, but they don't give me the feeling I get when I occasionally start the GTR in that boring Spa. The fact I can watch a race from TV held at that place and then drive some laps there myself. Watching the race knowing the track just gives me something extra.

Of course I understand that many others don't see it like I do.

I think Eric's tracks are too hilly

Indeed Eric designs very nice tracks. The problem as I see it, at this stage, is that he can only make so many before each release. For league racing especially, but also for any type of races, this means you are limited to rotation between 6 venues. Sure, there are several configs for many of them, but 5 configs isn't the same as 5 tracks.

The response on the issue of usermade addons is that there will be alot of crap. They are probably right. So what? You don't have to use the bad ones. In the communities I am familar with there are some trackmakers that stand out, because they make very good looking AND accurately modelled tracks. I have no doubt there are people like this in LFS' community as well, if they get the chance

As for real tracks: Yes I feel they add value. Partly because they exist or have existed, and my favourite racing drivers have showed their skills on them. But mostly because some of them are really fantastic drives!

Quote from thd :

The problem as I see it, at this stage, is that he can only make so many before each release.

That's a good point. I wonder how long it takes Eric to make a track. From scratch to release code. Anyone have any idea?

Eric?

LFS needs more tracks like Westhill. It only has normal and reversed config, and its brilliant

Quote from farcar :

That's a good point. I wonder how long it takes Eric to make a track. From scratch to release code. Anyone have any idea?

Eric?

He has to do much more than just the tracks. I guess making the basic lines of a track doesn't take too long but the finishing takes a loong time.

Quote from Don :

are you sure you want such bonuses?
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9988/charade212qq.jpg
http://forum.rscnet.org/attach ... d=342047&d=1136933280
http://forum.rscnet.org/attach ... d=341665&d=1136807546

*hurls

man even nascar 2003 addon tracks look better than that crap wtf game is that