Anything but the brown acid. It's a bad trip man....
It's certainly not impossible to forget what things do but judging by the "How big is LFS" thread, Scawen has a reasonably tight grip on his codebase.
I anticipate that community modding will be an option when Scawen is satisfied with the physics and underlying game engines to the extent that no _fundamental_ changes will be made to the physics and game engines (ie, not gonna happen in S2).
Why not now? Just look at the whinging when he makes a change and something as piddling as a hotlop is wiped. Now how many moaning gits would be posting if he made a change that led to their new/modded vehicles no longer working? This is also (in my opinion) why we won't see official new vehicles in S2. It's simply not worth the time and effort to develop new vehicles and then to have to tune and tweak them everytime you make an underlying change. I'm honestly surprised we've got the number of vehicles we do.
The way I see it (and of course this is just my theory and hope
), Scawen plans to develop the underlying physics to the point that creating 'new' cars or recreating real world vehicles will be simple because all the input values you'll select will be rational, real world type values. Contrast this to RFactor where the underlying physics engine is a piece of crap and where the result is;
a) some good mods where people have tweaked the input values completely outside of what you'd call rational in order to achieve a feel that's somewhat realistic
b) a whole heap of crap mods
Then consider the online situation. If modding/vehicle creation was possible now (ignoring LFSTweak etc), the end result would likely be a huge number of different and almost completely unbalanceable vehicles and the userbase could be fractured. You'd need to race a league to get any real parity in racing and outside of places like CTRA, pickup racing would disappear. This (the way I see it) is the lifeblood of LFS and a great differentiator versus other racing sims/games.
Finally, a lot of people seem to be hung up on the idea that the only possible reason for Scawen (and Eric and Victor of course) to develop the game is to make a HEAP of cash and that he must be crazy because he's not implementing every improvement suggestion on the forums and won't build the development team and won't accept offers of cash to add 'feature X' or 'feature Y'. In contrast, I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that he said he wasn't actually keen to advertise or promote LFS to any great extent right now, was happy with the 'limited' distribution and was certainly happy with the rate of development. Is it not possible that he wants a project that he can make _some_ money from (if not a mint) for a number of years into the future while his children grow? Is it not possible that he's content to do something that he finds satisfying and to live a reasonably comfortable life instead of having to go corporate and maximise profits?
Finally x2. There's absolutely nothing stopping him from selling more S2 licenses, finalising his physics and game engines, never releasing an S3 and instead selling the engine to a development house. I know if I had to deal with a lot of the whingers around here and was made a good offer I'd certainly consider it.....
Anyways, those are my thoughts for now. In reality Scawen probably hates to be at home, wants to make a million yesterday, wishes he could expand Scavier into a game development house and would love you to mod his game but he just can't figure out how to open source it...
Why not now? Just look at the whinging when he makes a change and something as piddling as a hotlop is wiped. Now how many moaning gits would be posting if he made a change that led to their new/modded vehicles no longer working? This is also (in my opinion) why we won't see official new vehicles in S2. It's simply not worth the time and effort to develop new vehicles and then to have to tune and tweak them everytime you make an underlying change. I'm honestly surprised we've got the number of vehicles we do.
The way I see it (and of course this is just my theory and hope
), Scawen plans to develop the underlying physics to the point that creating 'new' cars or recreating real world vehicles will be simple because all the input values you'll select will be rational, real world type values. Contrast this to RFactor where the underlying physics engine is a piece of crap and where the result is;a) some good mods where people have tweaked the input values completely outside of what you'd call rational in order to achieve a feel that's somewhat realistic
b) a whole heap of crap mods
Then consider the online situation. If modding/vehicle creation was possible now (ignoring LFSTweak etc), the end result would likely be a huge number of different and almost completely unbalanceable vehicles and the userbase could be fractured. You'd need to race a league to get any real parity in racing and outside of places like CTRA, pickup racing would disappear. This (the way I see it) is the lifeblood of LFS and a great differentiator versus other racing sims/games.
Finally, a lot of people seem to be hung up on the idea that the only possible reason for Scawen (and Eric and Victor of course) to develop the game is to make a HEAP of cash and that he must be crazy because he's not implementing every improvement suggestion on the forums and won't build the development team and won't accept offers of cash to add 'feature X' or 'feature Y'. In contrast, I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that he said he wasn't actually keen to advertise or promote LFS to any great extent right now, was happy with the 'limited' distribution and was certainly happy with the rate of development. Is it not possible that he wants a project that he can make _some_ money from (if not a mint) for a number of years into the future while his children grow? Is it not possible that he's content to do something that he finds satisfying and to live a reasonably comfortable life instead of having to go corporate and maximise profits?
Finally x2. There's absolutely nothing stopping him from selling more S2 licenses, finalising his physics and game engines, never releasing an S3 and instead selling the engine to a development house. I know if I had to deal with a lot of the whingers around here and was made a good offer I'd certainly consider it.....
Anyways, those are my thoughts for now. In reality Scawen probably hates to be at home, wants to make a million yesterday, wishes he could expand Scavier into a game development house and would love you to mod his game but he just can't figure out how to open source it...
I've got two things to say.
1) The picture of that Romanian bird seems to draw Scawen. If you want him to reply to one of your posts, simply change your avatar.
2) I swear he included support for all those 'obscure' languages so he could attract a userbase who didn't complain so bloody much (or at least when they did he wouldn't understand it).
Seriously, take what you're given and be appreciative you bunch of whingers! I don't seem to recall reading in the terms and conditons that Eric had to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week on the textures for the alpha release patches of stage two of the game or that posts by Scawen constitute contractually binding obligations on him to deliver specific updates.
I'm honestly not brown nosing. The terms are pretty short, clear and concise as to what you get (the right to play on S1 or S2 servers depending on what you paid for) and state pretty clearly that updates to the game are to be expected (for better or worse, depending on your opinion of any given update).
<mumbles>Bunch of unappreciative Gen-Y'ers.</mumbles>
OK now I'll brown nose:
Thanks for the kick arse game Scawen. Can't wait to see where it goes over the next few years and kudos for getting into a position where you can work from home while your kids grow up. Please keep giving us updates on where you'd like things to go, whether they do or not, and look after the family.
1) The picture of that Romanian bird seems to draw Scawen. If you want him to reply to one of your posts, simply change your avatar.
2) I swear he included support for all those 'obscure' languages so he could attract a userbase who didn't complain so bloody much (or at least when they did he wouldn't understand it).
Seriously, take what you're given and be appreciative you bunch of whingers! I don't seem to recall reading in the terms and conditons that Eric had to work 8 hours a day 5 days a week on the textures for the alpha release patches of stage two of the game or that posts by Scawen constitute contractually binding obligations on him to deliver specific updates.
I'm honestly not brown nosing. The terms are pretty short, clear and concise as to what you get (the right to play on S1 or S2 servers depending on what you paid for) and state pretty clearly that updates to the game are to be expected (for better or worse, depending on your opinion of any given update).
<mumbles>Bunch of unappreciative Gen-Y'ers.</mumbles>
OK now I'll brown nose:
Thanks for the kick arse game Scawen. Can't wait to see where it goes over the next few years and kudos for getting into a position where you can work from home while your kids grow up. Please keep giving us updates on where you'd like things to go, whether they do or not, and look after the family.
Fullstop. End of story.
If the clerk of the course and stewards wanted to, they could easily classify the deliberate slowing down as "unsporting action" and penalise accordingly;
FIA Rally events: General Prescriptions - 3.3.6
I say go back to selection of slot by position on the road or else there's always going to be an incentive to 'work the system' which frankly makes the whole championship look like a bit of a joke to outsiders.
FIA Rally events: General Prescriptions - 3.3.6
Any incorrect, fraudulent or unsporting action carried out by the competitor or members of the crew will be judged by the stewards, who may impose a penalty which can go as far as exclusion.Which would of course result in drivers slowing down a bit through whole stages and then WRC becomes a test of who can figure out what average speed is best to ensure they're not first on the road (at least before the last stage!)
I say go back to selection of slot by position on the road or else there's always going to be an incentive to 'work the system' which frankly makes the whole championship look like a bit of a joke to outsiders.
@Tristan - The inside is never an escape option at that chicane and Kimi made no effort at any point to go for the outside. I've just watched it over and over again and I still think he's going for the soft spot.
Either way it's done and it's back to regular programming for F1 until the next wet race. Screw night races, I say they build sprinkler systems for F1 tracks and we have wet races every round!
Either way it's done and it's back to regular programming for F1 until the next wet race. Screw night races, I say they build sprinkler systems for F1 tracks and we have wet races every round!
@keiran - not being sarcastic. Let me put it this way; Raikkonen could have avoided crashing into the back of Sutil and could easily, had he so desired, put his car into the the armco instead. It seems pretty clear he was going to go for the option which was more likely to end up with him still scoring some points and that was obviously not going to be by hitting the wall and sliding sideways through Nouvelle Chicane sans front wing and trailing the remnants of his broken front wheels and suspension.
So he went for the stay on the track option and staying on the track implied hitting Sutil as there was no way he could have done anything else - it was simply a question of how hard he hit and as Kimi made the choice to stay on the track he, by implication, targeted Sutil.
What I'd actually argue is that after the last catch he had enough control that he had a very small percentage shot at getting to the right of Sutil but with such a low percentage of making it and with an end result if he failed of spinning again and hitting the wall to the right or hitting left front wheel to right rear and breaking his suspension he chose the better option for him (and quite possibly for Sutil as well) of hitting him with his nose cone first which is engineered to break and be replaceable. At that point I argue that he made a conscious decision to minimise damage (running the percentages in his ice cold Nordic brain) and the best way to do that was to hit the guy in front with your nosecone. I'd also argue that any professional driver in his position would do exactly the same thing. If you think otherwise I have to say I think you're being a bit naive.
So I don't blame him and I actually think that if he didn't recover from the first (or indeed the subsequent spins) he most likely would have pinballed down the hill off the walls and cleared up Sutil anyway and with more damage to both cars. What happened was probably pretty close to the best possible outcome for both of them.
At the end of the day, it's just a racing incident but tragic when it happens to the underdog.
Now time to fan the flames!
F1 is all about luck these days. You're either lucky to be behind the wheel of a Ferrari or Mclaren or you're lucky that circumstances led to your good result.
Now as far as the "great drives" from Hamiton and Sutil go, they just weren't that great! Just look at the FIA official timing sheets and lap chart for the race and pay attention to where they gain places. In Hamilton's case, he started 3rd on the grid, gained one place due to an overtaking manoeuvre (which to be fair was as much due to his good start as Raikkonen's poor one) and then went as far back as fifth after his solo into the wall accident. From then onwards he gained places after the car in front pitted and all he had to do was keep the car on the grey stuff (which a few drivers managed throughout the whole race, unlike Hamilton) and not run out of fuel to win the race. He got into first position following mistakes from other drivers (ie nothing to do with Hamilton's "great" driving) and the only way he could have finished anything other than first thereafter was if he made a mistake (or another one anyway) of his own.
Since when was not making a mistake and benefiting from the mistakes of others the hallmark of a "great" drive? Competent? Yes (mostly). Great? Emphatically no.
Do I discount Hamilton's effort (or career in general). Hell no! He's shown a hell of lot of skill for his age and experience and he's shown the potential to be a great driver. As for being a great man, he's shown very little to suggest that he will be and I blame his father and upbringing but that's a whole 'nother flame war I'm sure!
As for Sutil's "great" race, while he was 20th on the grid and should/could have finished 4th, there were really only a couple of overtaking moves on the track. The bulk of his early position gains were due to other drivers having offs (when you start 20th, you gain spots for pretty much everyone's big mistakes) and the (still odd) 3 spot gain while allegedly under yellow. From then onwards he just gained places as the car in front pitted and ultimately benefited from being able to fill the tank and do a one stopper while a lot of the remaining runners were hobbled by final qualifying and the consequent parc fermé fuel regulations.
Do I discount Sutil's effort? Hell no! There's no other way for a bottom of the pack car starting in 20th to get anywhere near the podium but to claim that any drive in F1 these days is really great is misguided. If you punch above your weight and get more points than expected in any race it's because others made mistakes and fate transpired to get you there. The "great" drives of recent history (as far as I'm concerned) are pretty much all Schumacher efforts and while I'd agree that in his early career some were actually great, the way I see it is if you're in the best car and you're storming through the pack it's more to do with your vehicle and other drivers (discounting Ralf and Fishyfella perhaps!) not fighting for position as aggressively as they would if it was one of their regualr competitors behind them.
Oh and just for the record, should Webber end up winning a GP following accidents/breakdowns/whatever of every car in the field I don't care what you say - it was truly the greatest drive in F1 history. Just like Steven Bradbury's Olympic gold medal win it will be Aussie bred skill that won the day!
So he went for the stay on the track option and staying on the track implied hitting Sutil as there was no way he could have done anything else - it was simply a question of how hard he hit and as Kimi made the choice to stay on the track he, by implication, targeted Sutil.
What I'd actually argue is that after the last catch he had enough control that he had a very small percentage shot at getting to the right of Sutil but with such a low percentage of making it and with an end result if he failed of spinning again and hitting the wall to the right or hitting left front wheel to right rear and breaking his suspension he chose the better option for him (and quite possibly for Sutil as well) of hitting him with his nose cone first which is engineered to break and be replaceable. At that point I argue that he made a conscious decision to minimise damage (running the percentages in his ice cold Nordic brain
) and the best way to do that was to hit the guy in front with your nosecone. I'd also argue that any professional driver in his position would do exactly the same thing. If you think otherwise I have to say I think you're being a bit naive.So I don't blame him and I actually think that if he didn't recover from the first (or indeed the subsequent spins) he most likely would have pinballed down the hill off the walls and cleared up Sutil anyway and with more damage to both cars. What happened was probably pretty close to the best possible outcome for both of them.
At the end of the day, it's just a racing incident but tragic when it happens to the underdog.
Now time to fan the flames!
F1 is all about luck these days. You're either lucky to be behind the wheel of a Ferrari or Mclaren or you're lucky that circumstances led to your good result.
Now as far as the "great drives" from Hamiton and Sutil go, they just weren't that great! Just look at the FIA official timing sheets and lap chart for the race and pay attention to where they gain places. In Hamilton's case, he started 3rd on the grid, gained one place due to an overtaking manoeuvre (which to be fair was as much due to his good start as Raikkonen's poor one) and then went as far back as fifth after his solo into the wall accident. From then onwards he gained places after the car in front pitted and all he had to do was keep the car on the grey stuff (which a few drivers managed throughout the whole race, unlike Hamilton) and not run out of fuel to win the race. He got into first position following mistakes from other drivers (ie nothing to do with Hamilton's "great" driving) and the only way he could have finished anything other than first thereafter was if he made a mistake (or another one anyway) of his own.
Since when was not making a mistake and benefiting from the mistakes of others the hallmark of a "great" drive? Competent? Yes (mostly). Great? Emphatically no.
Do I discount Hamilton's effort (or career in general). Hell no! He's shown a hell of lot of skill for his age and experience and he's shown the potential to be a great driver. As for being a great man, he's shown very little to suggest that he will be and I blame his father and upbringing but that's a whole 'nother flame war I'm sure!
As for Sutil's "great" race, while he was 20th on the grid and should/could have finished 4th, there were really only a couple of overtaking moves on the track. The bulk of his early position gains were due to other drivers having offs (when you start 20th, you gain spots for pretty much everyone's big mistakes) and the (still odd) 3 spot gain while allegedly under yellow. From then onwards he just gained places as the car in front pitted and ultimately benefited from being able to fill the tank and do a one stopper while a lot of the remaining runners were hobbled by final qualifying and the consequent parc fermé fuel regulations.
Do I discount Sutil's effort? Hell no! There's no other way for a bottom of the pack car starting in 20th to get anywhere near the podium but to claim that any drive in F1 these days is really great is misguided. If you punch above your weight and get more points than expected in any race it's because others made mistakes and fate transpired to get you there. The "great" drives of recent history (as far as I'm concerned) are pretty much all Schumacher efforts and while I'd agree that in his early career some were actually great, the way I see it is if you're in the best car and you're storming through the pack it's more to do with your vehicle and other drivers (discounting Ralf and Fishyfella perhaps!) not fighting for position as aggressively as they would if it was one of their regualr competitors behind them.
Oh and just for the record, should Webber end up winning a GP following accidents/breakdowns/whatever of every car in the field I don't care what you say - it was truly the greatest drive in F1 history. Just like Steven Bradbury's Olympic gold medal win it will be Aussie bred skill that won the day!
Why? Until somebody actual gets something right, everyone else is getting it wrong.
Just saying is all
Yeah well Hamilton _did_ model his helmet after Senna so it's natural to constantly praise him for being as good as Senna was......despite him being a prick....and nowhere near the man or driver that Senna was.....
The Hamilton bit:
- Here's a link to the official FIA Lap charts (PDF) and as you can see, Hamilton started third, gained one position thanks to Raikkonen's poor start, went as low as 5th after his solo into the wall accident and subsequent pit in and each position he gained thereafter was due to the car in front pitting in.
How exactly is that Senna-esque?!
- I acknowledge that he's a particularly competent driver, especially so given his relative lack of experience but there are plenty of other drivers who, if given his car, would be doing just as well.
Random thoughts:
- Mark Webber is 4th in the championship on his own with 15 points.
- That really says something about both DC (time to retire methinks).
- That REALLY says something about the factory Renault car/driver packages.
- Yes DC lost it stupidly but in his defence, there was no way in hell he (or anyone else) could have recovered it once the rear broke away at that point of the track at that speed in those conditions.
- It looks like Sutil may have picked up three places under a full course yellow.
- The only way Webber will ever win a GP is if he races for one of the big three. F1 rules governing engine and gearbox replacement are leading to an (intended) increase in reliability and with the kind of dollars the big three have to throw at their "second" drivers it means you're just not likely to see a win from one of the midfield teams. There's always going to be a Mclaren, Ferrari or BMW finishing and they're always going to be faster than Red Bull Renault.
- F1 cars are just too fast and the tracks they race on just aren't designed in a way to promote interesting racing.
- Either the cars or the tracks need to change dramatically if we want to see interesting racing.
- F1 management couldn't give a rats arse' about interesting racing.
- I would happily stab James Allen in the face with a plastic fork (or indeed any piece of cutlery) given half a chance.
Controversy:
- As soon as Kimi locked up, the best he could hope for was to rear end Sutil (cars are a lot softer than the armco).
- Say what you will about him, Kimi _does_ have very good car control and he's known for having a very analytical mind.
- He certainly did a good job keeping that thing straight....
Make of the above what you will and I don't really blame him in the slightest as any professional driver in his position would have been aiming to reduce damage and keep his own car in the race but as far as I'm concerned, Kimi _was_ targetting the back of Sutil's car....
The Hamilton bit:
- Here's a link to the official FIA Lap charts (PDF) and as you can see, Hamilton started third, gained one position thanks to Raikkonen's poor start, went as low as 5th after his solo into the wall accident and subsequent pit in and each position he gained thereafter was due to the car in front pitting in.
How exactly is that Senna-esque?!
- I acknowledge that he's a particularly competent driver, especially so given his relative lack of experience but there are plenty of other drivers who, if given his car, would be doing just as well.
Random thoughts:
- Mark Webber is 4th in the championship on his own with 15 points.
- That really says something about both DC (time to retire methinks).
- That REALLY says something about the factory Renault car/driver packages.
- Yes DC lost it stupidly but in his defence, there was no way in hell he (or anyone else) could have recovered it once the rear broke away at that point of the track at that speed in those conditions.
- It looks like Sutil may have picked up three places under a full course yellow.
- The only way Webber will ever win a GP is if he races for one of the big three. F1 rules governing engine and gearbox replacement are leading to an (intended) increase in reliability and with the kind of dollars the big three have to throw at their "second" drivers it means you're just not likely to see a win from one of the midfield teams. There's always going to be a Mclaren, Ferrari or BMW finishing and they're always going to be faster than Red Bull Renault.
- F1 cars are just too fast and the tracks they race on just aren't designed in a way to promote interesting racing.
- Either the cars or the tracks need to change dramatically if we want to see interesting racing.
- F1 management couldn't give a rats arse' about interesting racing.
- I would happily stab James Allen in the face with a plastic fork (or indeed any piece of cutlery) given half a chance.
Controversy:
- As soon as Kimi locked up, the best he could hope for was to rear end Sutil (cars are a lot softer than the armco).
- Say what you will about him, Kimi _does_ have very good car control and he's known for having a very analytical mind.
- He certainly did a good job keeping that thing straight....
Make of the above what you will and I don't really blame him in the slightest as any professional driver in his position would have been aiming to reduce damage and keep his own car in the race but as far as I'm concerned, Kimi _was_ targetting the back of Sutil's car....
Hmmm. The EDID header isn't corrupt so it's not EDID at fault (or at least not a corrupt header) and I'll be buggered! I really thought it was going to be that...
All I could really suggest is a final basic troubleshooting step and that's to try a different panel. If you can get a mate to bring one round or drag your PC to their's it'd give you a pretty good idea if you're stuck with the 3870 till Christmas!
Also, I forgot to mention that the softMCCS app has functionality to let you rewrite dodgy EDID data so if it _is_ an EDID problem, you can fix it and still run with the 9800GTX and your current panel.
Hey again.
This sounds more and more like an EDID issue and there's every chance you'll still have the same problem with any other current generation nVidia card.
The DVI to D-sub adapter test will confirm it one way or another so if you find the same problem with whatever card you end up with (I still think you can get the 8800GTS or 9800GTX working) I'd suggest digging out that adapter. Either that or borrow a mates panel and try it out via DVI. It should work a treat and would prove conclusively that there's no issue with your power supply, RAM or whatever else people want to suggest is your problem.
In terms of explaining why it worked for a while and now doesn't, the corruption can occur during the installation of a driver and while you had valid EDID data initially and the panel/card combo worked, at some point during the evening the EDID data was corrupted (quite possibly during the aborted Vista install) and at subsequent posts, the EDID information received by the card is not acceptable and so it refuses to send a signal.
Why does it continue to work with the older card? I believe that the EDID is only partially corrupted when this occurs and different cards apparently deal with the corruption differently. While the 7900GTX doesn't barf, the 8800GTS and 9800GTX both do.
If you have any interest in it, you can obtain the EDID information with this little utility. I guess you could setup your system to accept RDP connections, bootup with a dodgy panel/card combo and RDP into the box and run the utility so you can get the data from the failing panel/card combo. A bit of work but not much hassle if you've got access to another PC...
Anyways, best of luck and keep us abreast of the situation.
PS. 22" widescreens are getting pretty cheap and while they're TN panels for the most part, they're very unlikely to have EDID issues with a current gen nVidia card!
Sounds like it could be an EDID problem. If you can get your hands on another panel it'd be worth giving it a test. Another way to test (if your panel has both DVI and D-sub) is to try a DVI to D-sub adapter and hook up the panel via D-sub. If the display works, then it's an EDID problem for sure.
What panel do you have? There are some with known EDID issues....symptom being a failure for the monitor to detect a signal from the video card and failing to 'resume from standby'.
What panel do you have? There are some with known EDID issues....symptom being a failure for the monitor to detect a signal from the video card and failing to 'resume from standby'.
The graphics look really nice and the damage modeling looks especially good but the physics just don't seem like they're as realistic as LFS
Clearly the answer is for Scavier to buyout Polyphony Digital and take the GT5:P graphics, tracks and car models and combine them with the LFS physics model.
Seriously though, I've had the Japanese version since a couple of days after release (and played every GT title to completion including all the prologues) and it was dissatisfaction after a month or two that led me here to LFS (which I read about on the GTPlanet forums). Yes the graphics are astounding but the shortfalls left me wanting for more - namely some form of damage, more realistic tyre modeling and to be frank, a community of people who are actually into racing rather than playing dodgems online.
Too many comments to reply to but here are a few thoughts;
- I wish people would stop calling the GT Prologues "demos" - they've always been intended as a "teaser" to keep people keen throughout the seriously extended development cycle (GT5:P in 1 year? You must be tripping!). Granted GT5:P is being used as a beta for the online functionality but what better way to iron out the issues?
- The GT series has always been plagued with delays. The OP wants to believe that the full GT5 will be on time but it's already looking like the AU, EU and NA versions will slip to early 2009.
- I've got a sneaking suspicion (or perhaps it's just wishful thinking) that the last big delay in GT5 (the one that pushed it back about a year) is due to the implementation of a damage system. Kazunori has said it'll have to be perfect (not just visually but physical modeling of damage and the impact to handling) and while perfection is in the eye of the beholder, it'd be nice to finally shut those Xbox360/Forza retards up! :P
- £30 for 2 1/2 years of play? £30 for nearly 50,000 miles of online racing? That's £1 a month, £1 for more than 1600 miles. I've been playing computer games of one sort or another for more than 25 years and in all that time I've never seen a single game that can give as much playability for such an extended period for such a small amount of money
Never before has so much been given by so few for so many?
- GT5:P online will be as good as useless until private races are possible - too many idiots. Are they actually confirmed for release? I don't believe so.
- I'd agree that more Australian based LFS racing servers (or at least one or two that are up the whole time) would be nice. I'm tossing up the option of colocating a box I've got sitting spare and running one myself - we'll see.
- The fact that the GT series will be played predominantly by people with sixaxis controllers means that the physics model HAS to be dumbed down so that cars will accept the all on or all off brake and accelerator. Yes you can run with simulation mode and a G25 but the underlying physics remains suspect.
Example: The first evening after I got LFS I was going for a spin around SO4 in a LX6 and every time I jumped off the accelerator (as you'd need to do in GT5:P with a controller and as I got lazy and used to doing with a G25) at the dip before the first first bend I'd lose control but after a lap or two I started to drive "properly" and ease off rather than snapping off and of course I went faster through the corner and maintained car control.
I'm also of the belief that the limitations enforced on PD through having to primarily support steering using a sixaxis (be it buttons or analog stick) are the reason that donuts and figure eights aren't possible.
Quite simply GT5:P doesn't have that level of detail in the car physics that LFS has. GT5:P is more forgiving and it needs to be to keep the "average" console GT player happy.
- I still haven't completely finished the GT5:P Japanese version as I've been playing LFS instead.
- I'll be picking up GT5:P Australian version tomorrow to checkout the new functionality and cars and will play for a while but expect I'll be back on LFS before the end of the night and really only go for a spin in GT5:P when I want the eye-candy.
- "People" are a bunch of whingers no matter what you do. Just witness the bitching and moaning on the GTPlanet forums about the lack of smoke, tyre marks, Track X, Car Y, blah blah blah. It's fricken tedious - just accept what's given to you, appreciate the improvements and if you don't like it, don't play it (goes for any and every game).
- If I was Scawen/Eric/Victor, I'd personally be working on the fundamentals for the final S2 release and it wouldn't be until S3 that I'd start introducing new cars and tracks. It makes business sense (gives a good reason for people to upgrade from S2) and it makes sense from a development standpoint (there's no point in having bling if the fundamentals suck).
- I would personally donate a few hundred dollars/euros/name your currency to Scavier to put towards getting a license and doing the work of modeling Nürburgring. Enough people doing the same _could_ get it done.........
- This is my first post. Hope to see you all online sometime soon!
Seriously though, I've had the Japanese version since a couple of days after release (and played every GT title to completion including all the prologues) and it was dissatisfaction after a month or two that led me here to LFS (which I read about on the GTPlanet forums). Yes the graphics are astounding but the shortfalls left me wanting for more - namely some form of damage, more realistic tyre modeling and to be frank, a community of people who are actually into racing rather than playing dodgems online.
Too many comments to reply to but here are a few thoughts;
- I wish people would stop calling the GT Prologues "demos" - they've always been intended as a "teaser" to keep people keen throughout the seriously extended development cycle (GT5:P in 1 year? You must be tripping!). Granted GT5:P is being used as a beta for the online functionality but what better way to iron out the issues?
- The GT series has always been plagued with delays. The OP wants to believe that the full GT5 will be on time but it's already looking like the AU, EU and NA versions will slip to early 2009.
- I've got a sneaking suspicion (or perhaps it's just wishful thinking) that the last big delay in GT5 (the one that pushed it back about a year) is due to the implementation of a damage system. Kazunori has said it'll have to be perfect (not just visually but physical modeling of damage and the impact to handling) and while perfection is in the eye of the beholder, it'd be nice to finally shut those Xbox360/Forza retards up! :P
- £30 for 2 1/2 years of play? £30 for nearly 50,000 miles of online racing? That's £1 a month, £1 for more than 1600 miles. I've been playing computer games of one sort or another for more than 25 years and in all that time I've never seen a single game that can give as much playability for such an extended period for such a small amount of money
Never before has so much been given by so few for so many?
- GT5:P online will be as good as useless until private races are possible - too many idiots. Are they actually confirmed for release? I don't believe so.
- I'd agree that more Australian based LFS racing servers (or at least one or two that are up the whole time) would be nice. I'm tossing up the option of colocating a box I've got sitting spare and running one myself - we'll see.
- The fact that the GT series will be played predominantly by people with sixaxis controllers means that the physics model HAS to be dumbed down so that cars will accept the all on or all off brake and accelerator. Yes you can run with simulation mode and a G25 but the underlying physics remains suspect.
Example: The first evening after I got LFS I was going for a spin around SO4 in a LX6 and every time I jumped off the accelerator (as you'd need to do in GT5:P with a controller and as I got lazy and used to doing with a G25) at the dip before the first first bend I'd lose control but after a lap or two I started to drive "properly" and ease off rather than snapping off and of course I went faster through the corner and maintained car control.
I'm also of the belief that the limitations enforced on PD through having to primarily support steering using a sixaxis (be it buttons or analog stick) are the reason that donuts and figure eights aren't possible.
Quite simply GT5:P doesn't have that level of detail in the car physics that LFS has. GT5:P is more forgiving and it needs to be to keep the "average" console GT player happy.
- I still haven't completely finished the GT5:P Japanese version as I've been playing LFS instead.
- I'll be picking up GT5:P Australian version tomorrow to checkout the new functionality and cars and will play for a while but expect I'll be back on LFS before the end of the night and really only go for a spin in GT5:P when I want the eye-candy.
- "People" are a bunch of whingers no matter what you do. Just witness the bitching and moaning on the GTPlanet forums about the lack of smoke, tyre marks, Track X, Car Y, blah blah blah. It's fricken tedious - just accept what's given to you, appreciate the improvements and if you don't like it, don't play it (goes for any and every game).
- If I was Scawen/Eric/Victor, I'd personally be working on the fundamentals for the final S2 release and it wouldn't be until S3 that I'd start introducing new cars and tracks. It makes business sense (gives a good reason for people to upgrade from S2) and it makes sense from a development standpoint (there's no point in having bling if the fundamentals suck).
- I would personally donate a few hundred dollars/euros/name your currency to Scavier to put towards getting a license and doing the work of modeling Nürburgring. Enough people doing the same _could_ get it done.........
- This is my first post. Hope to see you all online sometime soon!
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG