Quote from George Kuyumji :

The disagreement is that with FSX or FS9 you can have a decent Simulator, even with a X-Plane level of quality. You need Payware Planes and other Add-Ons to raise the Game into a serious Simulation. But it is very possible with all those Quality Plane Products for MSFS.

Sounds like rFactor to me, the demo or even the base full product is so far behind what has been done with some of the mods out there.

Additionally, it is quite temperamental when it comes to controller setup and quite often all manner of config file editing needs to take place.

In short, it can be a pain in the arse to get it working at it's best, which, added to online server mismatches due to this, that or the other, is the main thing that probably keeps people away from it!

LFS is more self contained, but personally I think it contains a fair amount of depth and as such there is some time and patience involved in making sure everything is setup the way you want it.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the topic, so ignore me.

It is debatable how much information about LFS can really be provided to a first time user of this forum, and the intimidating stance of some of the posters here when it comes to "outsiders" could easily turn people away.

I think any question marks over whether or not to run an LFS dedicated magazine or, indeed, for AutoSimSport to provide more coverage is dependant on whether this community wants more members and whether they would be welcomed with arms wide. The only reason to put LFS information "out there" would be attract more players, is this what this community wants?

This whole thread has been like a bunch of pack animals vehemently defending their territories (Not everyone, of course, but enough people in this thread, on both sides of the coin). What we all seem to forget is that we all share the same interests and that is why any of us are here, why any of us have read one single page of AutoSimSport, and naturally why any of us have strong feelings about the sim or style of journalism we support.

The fact is, we all love driving simulated races, online (mostly), and battling wheel to wheel with other humans, regardless of what sim we use to do it.

I have, as we all know, said this a number of times in this thread but let me re-iterate: To create an LFS magazine would be a large amount of work for anyone here, it is a serious commitment in time and effort. AutoSimSport already have the infrastructure in place to create a magazine once a month, if anyone here wanted to write articles about LFS or any aspect of the simracing community then the structure is in place for you to do so, and to express your own journalistic style whilst doing so. So, if anyone here is serious about writing something email me, PM me, or pop over to the AutoSimSport forum and have a chat and things can happen.

If you don't wanna know, or you would rather eat your own eyes than read or have anything to do with AutoSimSport then fair enough, positivity gets results, negativity breeds more negativity.

Thanks,

Jon.

Quote from axus :

"Arguably"?

Well, this term has to be used, mainly because if it is not then a massive flame war starts somewhere or other. Probably does anyway.

Quote :

Let's face it, none of your writers really know how tyres behave, what a lateral slip curve looks like, what the effects of having a combination of slip ratio and slip angle are, how fluid dynamics work or anything like that. Instead of pretending to and hiding behind language in case you're wrong,

So, hang on, now you know what I know? And what all of our writers know? Perhaps you need a different magazine because the fact is, when we have provided technical articles, they have only received negative feedback from people that don't understand them.

I am glad you feel it necessary to offer insult here, I don't think I would knowingly assume that I know what you know.

Quote :

why don't you just tell me what's so "revolutionary" about these physics and let me make my own mind up about which sim makes which aspect most accurately?

Don't you do that anyway? Or does an author having an opinion force you into complying with it?

Quote :

Oh, shit, sorry, that would mean that the writer who has to review the latest rFactor patch (and is secretly a biased fanboy) has to say that it's not really revolutionary.

Words fail me.

I'll see you guys later.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I still maintain that unless you're going to look at the product objectively then the preview is a waste of everybody's time. With the notable exception of the developer's marketing department.

There is, of course, an argument to say that all previews are pointless and a waste of everyone's time.

Personally, I don't tend to read previews, but if I do I filter out the authors opinion from useful product information.

Quote from Gunn :

There is no reason to slate, or hype, or make assumptions and deliver them as facts, or glorify, or condem, or opinionate or even speculate. That goes for a finished product as well.

Yes, well, what you are talking about is not a preview/review or article, it is a "feature list".

A magazine that simply provides feature lists and general information that can be obtained from product websites is largely unnecessary.

Should film or theatre critics not provide opinion also, simply state the likes of "Well, some things happen, then the film ends" or should restaurant critics write reviews that state "I ate some deep fried cheese, followed by a burger with chips, then left."

???

Quote from thisnameistaken :

I have to agree - why bother previewing anything if all you're always going to be 100% guaranteed to hype it when you do? You might as well not bother looking at the product at all, just write your preview. You could write them years before the product comes out and save yourself a lot of bother.

Okay, let's take a preview version, maybe a beta or basically a piece of software that is NOT FINISHED because it is not a released piece of software....

Now, there will be bugs and problems with every piece of pre-release software, and the developer will tell you that those problems will not exist in the release version.

So, in the interests of not upsetting that developer, and eventually every developer, and eventually not having a magazine because you have no content, do you believe them? Or do you slate their unfinished code that you are previewing as.... Erm, unfinished code?

If you, as a reader, cannot ascertain that this is the case with previews in any type of media coverage of any type of software or digital media, then I feel great sadness for you.

Finished products are different story. Of course, isolating one article against a background of 23 issues as a definitive example of the style of writing and making an absolute ruling on the opinions of all of the staff writers is also something that causes me great, great, sadness.

Anyway, regardless of all this swingball, one thing still stands. We need more LFS coverage, and it seems we need hard-hitting, forthright, erudite people who pull no punches. We are happy to welcome new staff on board and I look forward to reading some of your articles.

The key here is the difference between a "review" and a "preview".

A preview is all about bigging a piece of software up, and about letting people know what they can expect from it. If something is rubbish then the chances are you won't be previewing it anyway, and in some cases the dev won't want any extra publicity.

Reviews, however, are where honesty comes in, and this is where AutoSimSport don't pay any lip service to developers. What this does not mean is that the reviewer is not allowed to like something, and giving a high score to, say, GTR2 is a reflection of the reviewer's opinion of the product. He likes it, full stop. That doesn't mean you will.

Our review of RACE, for example, would not gain us any friends at Simbin, but had we previewed it, chances are it would have been positive. Previews are for positivity!

If every article or review managed to tally with the opinion of everyone in the world, then the universe would be fantastic.

Also, the concept that continually slating a developer's products in PRE-RELEASE previews makes us in some way more honourable and will help the continuation of our publication is a bizarre one. As I said before, try to find a preview in PC Gamer that is not positive and tell me all about it.

@Hyperactive: If you are interested in contributing some articles, by all means email me and we can work something out: [email protected]

Jon.

I might have to change my login name for this forum to "matey"...

Yes, thisnameistaken, some say that the articles on the whole could be shorter, personally I think the key is that we need new blood, and for you, more coverage of sims that interest you.

Anyone who is interested should email me, post haste.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Apologies for the snips below - I'm not trying to twist your words, I just want to respond to these bits:



Surely you must be aware, though, of how emphatically positive the mag's coverage of practically everything is? A key example that soured a good number of mouths around here was your pre-release review of netKar-Pro, which inevitably came loaded with a mountain of signature-ASS superlatives.

When you can happily heap such high praise on an obviously fundamentally broken product, you must surely be aware that you appear more like a cheap industry shill than a respectable independent periodical. And how do you feel about all the people who pre-ordered netKar-Pro on the strength of your review, only to find it was (and still is) only half-finished?

In short: Yes, opinion is interesting, but when it's routinely the same opinion regardless of the subject not only does it become tiring, but it also begins to look decidedly dishonest.

Yes, I am aware of this, and it is another issue that is in the process of being addressed. However, if a given author likes something, we are not (as editors) going to tone down his writing to indicate that he does not!

We are placed in a very difficult position sometimes, obviously we need to maintain good relations with as many sim developers and modders as possible, when interviewing for a pre-release sim or mod the overall position will generally be positive. This is true of all computer gaming press, read PC Gamer previews and try to find one that says "This game will suck!"

The thing with this issue on the whole, and netKar Pro was a classic case in point, is that when you are looking at (Not reviewing, PRE-viewing) pre release code there will always be problems with it, because it is not finished! But a press preview cannot say "Well, it was buggy and this bit did not work, etc, etc..." mainly because at the time the developer promises you that these issues will not be present in the release copy. When the product is released and issues are still there, you're left taking the flack because you gave such a positive impression.

As to our post release review of netKar Pro... Well, it was given a mark that was too high, on the basis that patches were promised, as none of that has materialised I personally think we should re-review it, or re-score it... Then again, doing that would not prove much and would probably only chuck more flack our way.

At the end of the day, we get flack from some direction, no matter what we say or do!

The issue of being positive about alot of things is part due to wanting to keep people happy, but it is also because some of our writers are just very positive people, they like things and quite often do not carry the apathetic Englishness that I do in many things. If we had more people and more time for proofreading and additional levels of editing then these things could be picked up on more, I hope to put more time into that this year.

Of course, alot of the time the only reason an author wants to write an article on a given subject, is because they like it! I found having to review "RACE" and play test it for at least 35 hours, a massive bore, mainly because I did not like it much! But reviewing something I like, or previewing a beta that I am enjoying, is great fun... Things that are great fun move me to write about them.

Fact is, we have been doing this for three years now, and it is ALOT of work, if we got paid for it and did not have to do day jobs as well it would be great. If devs gave us anything other than the odd free copy of a sim (ironically not in the case of nkpro!!) that would be fantastic, I would love to drive a Lamborghini courtesy of ISI, but I don't! I would love to have more time to put into writing for and improving the magazine, but as it stands we do the best with what we have, and what we know, not everyone can like it but those that don't are welcome to talk to us and bring their thoughts to the table. We welcome new writers all the time, new blood brings new ideas that can only improve our product and help the whole commmunity.

Jon.

I think what you will find with Eric Alexander's column or the editor's prose in an interview with ISI's Gjon Gamaj, is that they are offering their opinions as writers, much like Chris Harris might bang on about Porsche 911's being great in AutoCar, or Nigel Roebuck celebrate's Gilles Villeneuve's talent.

Having an opinion is no bad thing for journalism, it just makes it more interesting, what AutoSimSport NEEDS is for people in THIS community to do less complaining about a lack of LFS content, but rather to "get amongst it" and provide the content that they want to see.

Fact is, AutoSimSport is run by a very small team, and that team simply cannot be playing and involved in every sim in the market. Sure, LFS has alot of players, but so does N2003, GPL, GTR2, RACE, rFactor, NASCAR Heat, netKar Pro, RBR, etc, etc... When there are so few of us we can only cover so much, lest we forget that producing a 100 page magazine every month is not the work of a moment.

The fact that AutoSimSport has shown lots of rFactor coverage of late is mostly a reflection of the large amount of high quality mods being produced for that sim recently, it is something that we are trying to address and through Becky Rose we have more LFS coverage this month and hopefully more on the way in the future.

If any of you want to submit articles to us, or have ideas for LFS coverage or would like us to do something for this community then get in touch, we are not paid by ANY sim developer and we are completely independant, but the fact is that some sim communities are interested in talking to us and when we get offered content are we supposed to turn it away?

So, Danowat, or any others, if you want articles about LFS why not write them? We would be delighted to cover LFS in a serious and concerted way that pleases the LFS community, and all of us can work together to make this happen.

Email me at [email protected] if you are interested or have any ideas on this subject.

Kind regards and best wishes.

Jon.