Yeah a bigger team would obviously make things quicker but it has been a busy year for ScaViEr. Scawen's son was born, he did up his house few months prior. Eric has been moving house. And considering that its only these 3 guys who actually work on the game when something like that comes into yourlife you have to concentrate on that and then once the home is sorted, and some stability is around then they can push on with the game again.
I think the birth of Scawens child must have been the best moment in his life and when something like that happens some things get priority but nevertheless they still gave us a patch, we still had progress, and he is currently working on the next incompatible patch.
But obviously things like that will effect the progress to some degree.
I did, I thought... hmmm he's basically still a kid, I should cut him some slack now that I understand why he has no awareness of subtlety or quality and no taste.
90% of gamers have no interes in Sims - they want games that are called sims but where you can go round a 90º turn at 100 mph without lifting, let alone braking (ok so thats an exaggeration, but you get my point I'm sure). Remember when GPL came out.. oh of course, you were a bit young then... it had the best graphics of any driving game and the best sound, it was miles better than everything else available, but it was a commercial flop for two reasons:
#1 more than 90% of gamers thought it was way to difficult.
#2 you needed a cutting edge system to get a decent frame rate.
Combine the two and you're talking about probably fewer than 10% of gamers with a cutting edge system... not looking good is it.
So just to be clear - what 90% of the gaming community wants is not relevant to the success of LFS.
Mind you my belief is that 90% of the gaming community would choose a new original and fun game over the same old same old any day of the week... remember when tetris came out ? oops of course not you're to young... did it have cutting edge graphics ? great sound? I think not.. HUGE WORLDWIDE SUCCESS ? sure of course, because it had what > 90% of gamers want and that is a great original concept and addictive gameplay... not wanky graphics effects...
(Remember the first of the Zelda games ? oh wait, you probably don't...
what about the massive success of some text adventure games.. no you won't remember those...)
The difference now is not so much that the gamers don't value original addictive concepts over graphics - it's that the game corporations are not willing to provide any new original ideas, so the only way for a game to distinguish itself is by being a bit glossier than the last one... marketing pushes this, and kids with no sense of history, taste or quality buy into it hook line and sinker... makes me sad
i'm a kid thus i dont know what i'm talking about?
i'm a kid which is pointing out to the elders that incase you dont know, the gaming industry is basically being run by the kids
supply and demand
and as far as you trying to be my elder, F you (because i know you want to start something against me) & because that was then.. this is now, games these days cant be compared to tetris and zelda... and they're always going beyond, look at Forza 2 mind you.. its taking the best approach it can, being as realistic as they want it to be (and it is somewhat), and modding it with however many million mods you can do.. and what does that say for consumers? it says i wan't it because i can take any ordinary car and do this to it, and see what effect it has
@Col I think your right, I see it all the time on the TV. Someone pushes clothing on the TV marketwise (like showing a commercial a bazillion time in one night) and mysterously the next week or two you will see everyone and their mom walking around with the same pair of jeans or shirt.
Nobody really thinks 100% for themselves and because of that you have marketing and sales pitches =)
LFS main priority is to be realistic, not selling as many licenses as possible. If it was any different, then we'd see Scvier tuning graphics before physics, and they'd actually try to advertise LFS, instead of leaving it completely to the community. Any "rule" regarding how to be successful in the gaming industry does not apply, because quite frankly, LFS doesn't give a turd about the gaming industry.
I'm not much older than you, but I can safely say that this is the fastest way to disqualify yourself from a discussion.
Is this the monthly "when do we get the next patch"-thread?
Just be patient! The recent two patches have both been compatible, so only small things and fixed could be included. I'm pretty sure, that we will get some bigger changes and maybe new game content as well with the next big incompatible patch.
How are the people that disagree with you NOT seeing the woods for the trees? If anything, this thread seems to separate those with attention spans longer than an ant from those with a very short term viewpoint. This, from my understanding, is "not seeing the forest for the trees" - not the other way around.
Well, I understand the sentiment. I wish it would move faster too I think most people do obviously The problem is this: what authority on God's green Earth gives you the right to use the word "should"? In point of fact; who are you or me or anyone else to say it "should" move faster? It's not our project! Using that terminology indicates that you've set goals in mind, and LFS is not meeting them - which is ludicrous because you have no influence over it. I'm not being difficult, it's just the truth
Those zealots probably just possess the maturity to realise complaining is fruitless, counterproductive, divisive, and a waste of forum space. Suggestions / constructive criticism is not what this thread is about.
Yes, the current dashboards are stupid. I'm certain they will be remedied, and probably sooner than later (IMO). I doubt anyone would say any different. However, if I had to chose between playing LFS right now with those dashboards or playing it with GTR2 physics but better dashboards (which is GTR2, and I do own it :razz then I would play LFS because the infrastructure is better. Shitty physics, for me, ruin immersion far more than a subpar dashboard. If that makes me a zealot, then call me a physics zealot rather than a LFS zealot because my zealousness is not based on LFS in and of itself, but rather what it represents and how it works.
As far the comment about "what if more people worked on it".... Has anyone cared to view the changelog for the GTR2 patch? How many people work on GTR2 - and look at the stupid list of changes that don't affect anything important about it.
Add the changes from S1->S2 to that changelog, since S2 has not even been out for 2 years, so include tire wear, heat, clear windows, updates to various tracks, blah blah blah to that already massive changelog posted above.
When I criticise LFS I'm totally aware that I'm not the lead developer of LFS or something like that.
I just voice my opinion that LFS isn't the product that I want, but it's the closest I can find.
That shouldn't be read as: "Everyone who likes LFS is a zealot."
It should be read as: "I think there is room for improvement and I suggest a slightly different set of priorities."
Scawen won't care. I'm pretty sure. But I believe that problems need to be voiced so we can discuss things and come up with a solution, like somone linking to a game project that is being developed under different priorities.
It's an exchange of opinions about LFS. And it's definitely more productive than adding yet another Nordschleife-discussion to the improvement-suggestions forum.
By now I have voiced my opinion and explained it. Now we're merely discussing the usefulness of criticism.
Vain
[Edit] I want to add that I don't agree with XCNuse's priorities. I couldn't care less about graphics.
Altough I don´t agree with many things said by XCNuse, I completely understand his point of view...
For me, LFS needs a bit of work in the models and specialy in the interiors, but it looks better in terms of color and ligthing than other games. On "real life" if you´re on a track the only light you´ve got is sunlight and so the colors tend to be a little dull, and not over satured as you see in almost all games. But this is me talking, a 33 year old industrial designer. For a 15 or 16 year old ( and that's the majority of people who buys games ), is problably more "real" to look at a car that looks like it´s been polished 10 seconds ago, and with 3 spotlights on top of it... It's a bit the same with what you see in almost 3d renders of cars. They look "photo-realistic", but that ain´t the same as "real". Most of the times what you get are shiny cars, so that people can see how great and detailed the model is and how you can make really cool glass and metal materials...
Absolutely, and the average age of the licensed LFS user is 26 IIRC (someone correct me if I'm pulling that out of my rear, but I'm certain I remember hearing that).
OT but I think the biggest reason why GPL didn't sell well was the choise of cars. The F1 '67 cars just aren't interesting to anyone except people who are really into historic cars. At least for me personally it was the main reason why I didn't try it instantly when it was out. At the time I wanted a sim, a good one but all I had was Viper racing and Sports car GT. Both were quite nice but not really what I wanted. Driving old slow formula cars wasn't that either, until later
---
I kinda agree with Vain about priorities. I like Nk pro's priorities much more than LFS'. Although I like much more the actual development of LFS. Still, all that arcade crap that gets into LFS just makes it less sim. I want my sims unforgiving, brutal and noisy.
In the end LFS is all about physics. Not that it is wrong but the skeleton needs some flesh around it. Maybe some legs too so it could kick some serious ass. When people talk about better graphics i kind get two impressions. Either that someone wants just kool effects and more shiny cars OR better cockpits, backfires and dirty windows. The latter is good stuff, it never gets old, it enhances the realism and gives the user nice "being there" feeling. I want graphics updates as well but only those that improve the "being there" feeling, not the kool screenshot wet effects and flashy dingledoos. All those little touches here and there make the sim more real, more believable and give it more flesh. I don't want graphical gimmicks not arcade view point alteration systems and minimap extremes that in the end make the sim just heavier, less purposeful and instead giving some flesh around the skeleton they just add weight, fat. Sim racing is not fun with fatties
Not sure how you meant that but not all drifters are the typical 16 year old never-get-laid stereotypes with their creatively aerodynamically immobilized econo boxes.. Stereotypes are nothing more than stereotypes
When people highlight LFS faults, and I'm not talking about some dumbass who plays the demo, I mean the people who have been here for a while. They are going it from a place of love New patches come along but still don't do much/anything to fix the things that have always been wrong or not as good as they should be.
Before any new cars or tracks or anything, I'd like a few long standing problems to be fixed first and I think that's was bugs people who've had it from the start, these problems are still here.
Yeah that might be true, but I wouldn't put XCNuse into the category of the average 15 year old teen. He's done some pretty amazing 3D work himself. Pretty lame to be denegrating him just because of his age. He's probably more informed and sophisticated in these matters than most of us here.
Maybe you didn't notice but XCNuse brought the issue of age into this discussion himself - he seemed to be implying that because he is 18 and the other guy he was disagreeing with is 36 that his and his friends opinions are more valid/important with respect to LFS (and games in general) and its development strategy.... seemed like an ignorant jibe to me
i wasn't trying to be ignorant, i was just pointing out that as you get older, yes you look at that particular aspect, but there are only a few elders who actually "game"
I think most people do obviously 
The problem is this: what authority on God's green Earth gives you the right to use the word "should"? In point of fact; who are you or me or anyone else to say it "should" move faster? It's not our project! Using that terminology indicates that you've set goals in mind, and LFS is not meeting them - which is ludicrous because you have no influence over it. I'm not being difficult, it's just the truth 
