Why do you think there is no provision for new tracks? Is that just a guess?
Why do you think there is no provision for new tracks? Is that just a guess?
In all fairness, as stated, Eric is just one man. The fact that he has created 6 locales with several different variations in only 4 (5? 6?) years is a pretty amazing one. Look at how long it takes someone to create tracks of this calibre for rFactor. It takes several months of work for one track, let alone one locale with various configs.
Having said that, I do wish for more locations. I'm thinking a forested location; a la Mont Tremblant, and, you guessed it, Mosport. Of course, with massive elevation changes, fast, etc etc. Everything I've said hundreds of times by now
Having said that, I do wish for more locations. I'm thinking a forested location; a la Mont Tremblant, and, you guessed it, Mosport. Of course, with massive elevation changes, fast, etc etc. Everything I've said hundreds of times by now
A nice twisty, dry desert-ish track like Laguna Seca would make a nice change of scenery :up: As for Mosport and Mt Tremblant, my GPL experience tells me those two would both utterly rock in LFS :up::up:
In response to the OP though: I think "why not more tracks?" is the wrong question to be asking, as it implies the devs have decided not to make any new tracks, which wouldn't make any sense because LFS is a WIP. So, imho, a more thoughtful question would be "when will we see new tracks or new layouts?" or "what kind of new tracks are the devs thinking of?" That's my two cents anyway
In response to the OP though: I think "why not more tracks?" is the wrong question to be asking, as it implies the devs have decided not to make any new tracks, which wouldn't make any sense because LFS is a WIP. So, imho, a more thoughtful question would be "when will we see new tracks or new layouts?" or "what kind of new tracks are the devs thinking of?" That's my two cents anyway
All the whining and bashing aside, none of the LFS tracks get on my top5 favourite track list. They just lack so many aspects and interesting points that a good race track has. Just few minutes ago I drove few laps in GPL. Tried Mosport, Laguna seca and Mexico. What a refreshing experience! And let's not forget Bathurst. Also my personal favourite, Blue Mountain Circuit from GPL. Below I have explained why I like these so much:
LFS totally lacks the highly technical inner sections of the Mexico where perfect line is everything, just a small mistake and the next few corners are lost too. Just painful when you go tens of laps doing little errors which cause the entire lap to go badly, but omg when you get it right! The Mexico is just so rewarding track with 2 totally different sides. The fast, long front straight which at the end turns to the right and tightens at the same time into a very slow chicane = you need to brake and turn in at the same time from full speed, while trying to get the best line out of it
. And then the technical "in-field" section. In Mexico most of the corners tighten toward the exit making it very technical and reqarding experience. Also the nature of most the corners is that at the beginning they have some postive camber but on the exit they get negative camber. Accelerating to the main staright out of the oval-alike fast, long corner which has negative camber in the end is one one the best main straight entries I've seen. It is just perfect example of good timing, advanced throttle control and precise driving line mixed with high speeds .
Or Mosport with it's huge elevation differences and the fact that you are driving in a corner all the time. Blind corners, tightening corners = a gem of track with lots of personality. LFS may have elevation differences but 99% of the time they are dead flat with uninteresting corners that don't use the possibilities of the surroundings at all. Only place where I can think that the elevations have any noticable effect is the KY3R section after the bridge (the tighter corners after the oval exit) or the Aston corkscrew. Nothing comes even close to Mosport.
Or Laguna seca with its fast sweepers, ultra slow and dangerous blind turn-in corkscrew and a T1 that really tests how late you dare to brake and still manage it. Not the easiest place to pass but the nature of the corners allow all the racers to stay quite close on some places.
I guess most of you know Bathurst so I won't go into details with it but the awesome backstraight and the couple slow corners with "noticable" elevation differences really make me drive just one more lap.
And Blue Mountain Circuit! This is probably the most hardest track I've ever driven, thanks to the very high speeds and corners with no room for error. For the layout, check this: http://gpltd.bcsims.com/track_ ... bluemt/map/map-bluemt.pdf. I know it looks a bit boring but try it in GPL (I think there is rfactor version of it, haven't personally tried it) and you will love it. It is a fantasy track but still one of the best tracks I've ever driven in a sim.
http://gpltd.bcsims.com/?dis=B
http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=Blue%20Mountain
http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=3143931
To say something about LFS tracks, I'd say that they look very much like dumbed down versions of what the first versions were to be. Just like when I was making my first GPL track few years ago. Everytime some part of the track felt too hard or slow, I edited it easier. Of course my track never got published, but it was pretty similar what AS3 is in LFS, only a bit longer and much greater elevation changes, very exciting at first but the easy layout makes it quite boring after a while.
Also another thing about LFS tracks is that they are quite unrealistic in some ways, like the chicanes on every tracks. They are just made to be driven over. How many LFS chicanes can you find on Laguna seca, Mosport, Mexico, Bathurst or Blue Mountain Circuit? None. Still every track in LFS has at least one.
Couldn't disagree more. No more new configs, please, I'm begging Eric to stop with new configs. If tracks need to be updated, then be it so, but I'd like to see a completely new track in LFS.
Of course making a new track is hell of a lot work for a single person to do it all when he has to make every texture, 3d-model andother things alll by himself. And that's why we, I guess, have a lot configs instead of tracks...
LFS totally lacks the highly technical inner sections of the Mexico where perfect line is everything, just a small mistake and the next few corners are lost too. Just painful when you go tens of laps doing little errors which cause the entire lap to go badly, but omg when you get it right! The Mexico is just so rewarding track with 2 totally different sides. The fast, long front straight which at the end turns to the right and tightens at the same time into a very slow chicane = you need to brake and turn in at the same time from full speed, while trying to get the best line out of it
. And then the technical "in-field" section. In Mexico most of the corners tighten toward the exit making it very technical and reqarding experience. Also the nature of most the corners is that at the beginning they have some postive camber but on the exit they get negative camber. Accelerating to the main staright out of the oval-alike fast, long corner which has negative camber in the end is one one the best main straight entries I've seen. It is just perfect example of good timing, advanced throttle control and precise driving line mixed with high speeds .Or Mosport with it's huge elevation differences and the fact that you are driving in a corner all the time. Blind corners, tightening corners = a gem of track with lots of personality. LFS may have elevation differences but 99% of the time they are dead flat with uninteresting corners that don't use the possibilities of the surroundings at all. Only place where I can think that the elevations have any noticable effect is the KY3R section after the bridge (the tighter corners after the oval exit) or the Aston corkscrew. Nothing comes even close to Mosport.
Or Laguna seca with its fast sweepers, ultra slow and dangerous blind turn-in corkscrew and a T1 that really tests how late you dare to brake and still manage it. Not the easiest place to pass but the nature of the corners allow all the racers to stay quite close on some places.
I guess most of you know Bathurst so I won't go into details with it but the awesome backstraight and the couple slow corners with "noticable" elevation differences really make me drive just one more lap.
And Blue Mountain Circuit! This is probably the most hardest track I've ever driven, thanks to the very high speeds and corners with no room for error. For the layout, check this: http://gpltd.bcsims.com/track_ ... bluemt/map/map-bluemt.pdf. I know it looks a bit boring but try it in GPL (I think there is rfactor version of it, haven't personally tried it) and you will love it. It is a fantasy track but still one of the best tracks I've ever driven in a sim.
http://gpltd.bcsims.com/?dis=B
http://www.rfactorcentral.com/detail.cfm?ID=Blue%20Mountain
http://forum.rscnet.org/showthread.php?p=3143931
To say something about LFS tracks, I'd say that they look very much like dumbed down versions of what the first versions were to be. Just like when I was making my first GPL track few years ago. Everytime some part of the track felt too hard or slow, I edited it easier. Of course my track never got published, but it was pretty similar what AS3 is in LFS, only a bit longer and much greater elevation changes, very exciting at first but the easy layout makes it quite boring after a while.
Also another thing about LFS tracks is that they are quite unrealistic in some ways, like the chicanes on every tracks. They are just made to be driven over. How many LFS chicanes can you find on Laguna seca, Mosport, Mexico, Bathurst or Blue Mountain Circuit? None. Still every track in LFS has at least one.
Couldn't disagree more. No more new configs, please, I'm begging Eric to stop with new configs. If tracks need to be updated, then be it so, but I'd like to see a completely new track in LFS.
Of course making a new track is hell of a lot work for a single person to do it all when he has to make every texture, 3d-model andother things alll by himself. And that's why we, I guess, have a lot configs instead of tracks...
Hopefully the new configs were made simply to have more 'tracks' in LFS, sort of a stand-in until we get more unique tracks. It's a quicker way to broaden the selection, which gives us more to try out.
I hope that every track made from now, until the end of development is a new location.
Look at it this way; how many real race tracks (excluding Autocross, of course) have multiple versions? There are several, yes, but most tracks have one layout.
I hope that every track made from now, until the end of development is a new location.
Look at it this way; how many real race tracks (excluding Autocross, of course) have multiple versions? There are several, yes, but most tracks have one layout.
Also: Look at it this way: How different are the Aston 4, 5 and 6? And many real tracks have more than one configs just like LFS tracks.
NK pro tracks feel better than LFS tracks, but I haven't driven nk enough to really say that they are better indeed.
I think, you can also include the rally tracks. And also SO Classic is often used. Then, you didnt even mention FE Club and you said, that AS Cadet is "just good for the little cars", but I dont see, why that disqualifies it from being in a list of tracks suitable for league races. There are not only league races for the faster cars; actually, the best racing can be found in leagues with slower cars IMO.
So that adds the rally tracks (6), SO1 (2), FE1 (2) and AS1 (2). So we have even 40 tracks availabe for league racing use.
Because I said this:
Which is why I chose the tracks that I chose. Then I said this:
Which takes care of adding tracks like AS Cadet and SO Classic. I don't think you would want to drive those in the fastest cars. Or, on the other hand, you really wouldn't want to do 5 mile tracks like AS GP or KY GP Long in the slowest cars. Looking by car class, swapping longer and shorter tracks around, you still get around the same number of combos. Because lugging around AS GP in the UF1 or GTi would just be boring. And similarly, running the FZR at AS Cadet would be treacherous.
It's all a matter of opinion on track/car selection of course. I'm sure though, that no one in their right mind would want to be running GTR's, FOX, F08, or BF1 on the rally tracks
. But then again...... I did try to upload MRT at one of the FE rally tracks for the WR when S2 first came out, hehe. Didn't work though.Oh, ok. 
But there is actually a league running atm, that does only rally races with FXR with Slickmod.
And there is OLFSL, that uses very different combos and isnt sticking to one car.
But there is actually a league running atm, that does only rally races with FXR with Slickmod.
And there is OLFSL, that uses very different combos and isnt sticking to one car.
being and Ex "first person shooter" Clan player (UrbanTerror on Quake), one of the key things that made that play environment challenging was the depth of choice of Maps that could be played upon... All these where developed by the community and like LFS skins some maps where great and others really bad .. All depending upon the skill of the mapper..
Instead of the developers creating tracks would it be a better investment to create a SDK for track development so that the community can then do tracks ??
Just a thought ?
Instead of the developers creating tracks would it be a better investment to create a SDK for track development so that the community can then do tracks ??
Just a thought ?
A pretty horrible idea UNLESS the SDK is released only to dev-approved individuals with EULA included not to leak or share the kit with the threat of a five-gunshots-administred-to-the-head punishment.
Keep LFS mod-free - we already have enough sims with grotesk amounts of half-arsed mods you have to download, install, test yourself, hate them, uninstall, trying to find the correct version, dl again, installing, mod mismatch, suicide, reborn again as a ghost and then killing yourself again because you can't find online players for the game you'd love to play.
That'll be a vote for a no then 
Aww come on man, some people are very proud of their creations. These look like fun, don't they?:
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9988/charade212qq.jpg
http://forum.rscnet.org/attach ... d=341665&d=1136807546
http://forum.rscnet.org/attach ... d=342047&d=1136933280
Fun is a very relative term there
We don't need modifications on the actual tracks, neither new layouts of them. We need new enviroments, new chalenges, for more completed championships.
Eric does a good work. Maybe with a half dozen of colaborators, he could do more in less time.
I'm one between many here that dont want to see LFS open to modders. Oh no God, everything but not that.
But a little help of a few good colaborators could accelerate this loooooooooong wait...
Eric does a good work. Maybe with a half dozen of colaborators, he could do more in less time.
I'm one between many here that dont want to see LFS open to modders. Oh no God, everything but not that.
But a little help of a few good colaborators could accelerate this loooooooooong wait...
Could we send a missile to their house?
I don't think that's the best choice of screens to show how bad mods can be because:
1) SCGT was made in the last millennium
2) Is showing how crap rFactor can be when trying to fit a car into the scene
3) Is blatantly a WIP
Having said that I don't believe with its unique online emphasis (I say that because nK doesn't really exist any more, rFactor is a confused mess with too many mods, the N2003 pick up games are all ovals and GPL doesn't really have much pick up racing anymore) that mods would be suitable for LFS.
What LFS needs is more challenging circuits, all the tracks are currently far too wide and flat for real fun. I know some people will now complain that makes them easy to pass on, so fine keep the easy to pass on tracks and add some real challenging ones, Blue Mountain would be the perfect example.
I didn't mean new configs, meant that Eric should remake parts of the current tracks. Like the chicanes for example and making corners more narrow and stuff like that.
Agreed
I prefer new track's than rebuilding old one's. It's much better that there are at least one track per car that suites it well. More track's means more variation of corners and chicanes.
re real chicanes instead of 'LFS chicanes', one of my favorites is the last but 1 'corner/chicane' at Nurburgring (current F1) where the cars come charging down go heavy onto the brakes, but still carry some speed through there (perhaps thats a little too LFS style still) and also Silverstone's Abbey, which is another good chicane IMO. Chicanes dont have to be 40mph Monaco swimming pool section, crawl through at an unbareable pace, but they can be great places to force a pass but with chicanes like FE Gold's last chicane its too fast and the cars 'flung' through it in such a way its not really possible.
Real tracks with multiple layouts:
Hockenheim (3)
Magny-Cours (2)
Silverstone (3)
Indianapolis (2)
Nurburgring (2)
Monza (2)
Brands Hatch (2)
Suzuka (3 i think, whole, then an east and west course, kinda like FE Black with gold & green)
Probably half the F1 circuits have a club version used for national race series and then the full one for international and higher levels of racing, fair enough they dont have 72 versions like Aston has at last count, but its not uncommon for a track to have 2 layouts used frequently, so personally i'd like to see future tracks have at least a 'club' layout as anyone who watched yesterdays WTCC race will have noticed that even for those cars that track made them look like they were go-karts! 2min laps and a track which could have had 4 cars side by side round at times looked very odd to say the least (provided some great racing, and some moves which were textbook LFS Demo server moves). I'd rather see each track be given a National and a Club config, its much more realistic to expect from a track than purely 1 layout or 3+ layouts and allows a full sized track for the BF1/GTR types and a smaller version suited to our road cars, while the others will work in either/both nicely.
Huge track & small car or small track & fast car is just hard to get good (or realistic) racing.
I'd also agree with points about SDK or additional workforce, even after S3 when the guys call an end to things, i'd still be concerned if everyone had the ability ('option') to modify content whether it was new tracks, cars or complete modifications, purely because there would be half a dozen attempts at the same things and more terrible additions than good ones. I dont know how you'd decide who had the right to make new content, but a sizeable price (£25/$50 or whatever) attached to the tools might (fairly or unfairly) mean only people with the ability to utilise those tools would get them rather than every man and his dog d*cking about 'cos they can'.
Might seem harsh pricing equally capable people out, i'd love to try some things however if I was going to spend £25 on something, first i'd make sure it was something i'd at least put some effort into it otherwise i wouldnt bother, i'd just like to see the tools put into the hands of those who'd make a real effort to add quality content rather than people thinking they can make the new Skyline/Nordy etc when the end results is similar to those posted earlier.
Cant see it happening anytime soon, but it'd be nice if there were a group of people in the community able to work together to come up with something and get it 90% of the way so only minor touches were required to finalise it.
Real tracks with multiple layouts:
Hockenheim (3)
Magny-Cours (2)
Silverstone (3)
Indianapolis (2)
Nurburgring (2)
Monza (2)
Brands Hatch (2)
Suzuka (3 i think, whole, then an east and west course, kinda like FE Black with gold & green)
Probably half the F1 circuits have a club version used for national race series and then the full one for international and higher levels of racing, fair enough they dont have 72 versions like Aston has at last count, but its not uncommon for a track to have 2 layouts used frequently, so personally i'd like to see future tracks have at least a 'club' layout as anyone who watched yesterdays WTCC race will have noticed that even for those cars that track made them look like they were go-karts! 2min laps and a track which could have had 4 cars side by side round at times looked very odd to say the least (provided some great racing, and some moves which were textbook LFS Demo server moves
). I'd rather see each track be given a National and a Club config, its much more realistic to expect from a track than purely 1 layout or 3+ layouts and allows a full sized track for the BF1/GTR types and a smaller version suited to our road cars, while the others will work in either/both nicely.Huge track & small car or small track & fast car is just hard to get good (or realistic) racing.
I'd also agree with points about SDK or additional workforce, even after S3 when the guys call an end to things, i'd still be concerned if everyone had the ability ('option') to modify content whether it was new tracks, cars or complete modifications, purely because there would be half a dozen attempts at the same things and more terrible additions than good ones. I dont know how you'd decide who had the right to make new content, but a sizeable price (£25/$50 or whatever) attached to the tools might (fairly or unfairly) mean only people with the ability to utilise those tools would get them rather than every man and his dog d*cking about 'cos they can'.
Might seem harsh pricing equally capable people out, i'd love to try some things however if I was going to spend £25 on something, first i'd make sure it was something i'd at least put some effort into it otherwise i wouldnt bother, i'd just like to see the tools put into the hands of those who'd make a real effort to add quality content rather than people thinking they can make the new Skyline/Nordy etc when the end results is similar to those posted earlier.
Cant see it happening anytime soon, but it'd be nice if there were a group of people in the community able to work together to come up with something and get it 90% of the way so only minor touches were required to finalise it.
Wow, thats one slow car your racing at monaco there.
well the harbour area is such a lovely view, it'd be a shame to spoil the days outing by wizzing past and not taking in the scenary!
True true, i can see it now, all the F1 drivers parking up mid race having a nice refreshing drink watching the boats, then off again. (sorry for the O/T, im in one of those moods)
Just a thing that pop into my mind after reading some post in this (and several similar) thread...
Could it be, that it's quite hard to make a superb track when the physics aren't "done" yet? Some Finn said earlier in this thread, that Aston's eau rougie feels weird. It's just that we or eric can't actually know how it will feel after next physics update.
I would presume that building a track takes a lot of test driving. Same goes with new cars. No point in pushing more tracks and cars into public when next physics update could change the balance (or idea behind track and car) and therefore produce much more tweaking for the modeller. Easier to keep tracks and cars "half-done" and finish them little by little.
Could it be, that it's quite hard to make a superb track when the physics aren't "done" yet? Some Finn said earlier in this thread, that Aston's eau rougie feels weird. It's just that we or eric can't actually know how it will feel after next physics update.
I would presume that building a track takes a lot of test driving. Same goes with new cars. No point in pushing more tracks and cars into public when next physics update could change the balance (or idea behind track and car) and therefore produce much more tweaking for the modeller. Easier to keep tracks and cars "half-done" and finish them little by little.
Why not more tracks?
(79 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG