The intention of this thread is to list all the arguments for and against user-created cars and tracks (a.k.a. modding), in hope that it will save repeating the same arguments every time someone brings up the subject again.

First and foremost, let me stress that modding is not the choice of the developers. When Scawen and Eric started LFS, they decided against modding. The devs have clearly stated that they, and they alone, decide the direction in which LFS will be developed. As such, discussions about modding are fairly academic: the LFS world is not a democracy, even if it has free speech.

Constructive additions are welcome. If you have any corrections, new arguments or counter-arguments, then please post. But this is not a poll. Do not post here just to stress your desire for (or repulsion of) modding.

Pros

Attracting new customers
Some simracers are interested in LFS, but are put off because their favourite type of car or track is missing (NASCAR, WRC, supercars, dirt ovals, the Nordschleife, etc.). Third-party content could generate extra sales in LFS licenses, and growth for the community.

Preventing boredom
Many LFS enthusiasts eventually stop racing, because they get bored of racing the same cars and tracks over and over again. They often move to a different sim, when a fresh supply of content could have made them stick with LFS.

Exploring new possibilities
Talented creators of mods could find new ways to use LFS -- possibilities that Scawen and Eric had never thought of, or had no time for. As an example, consider InSim. It was originally made to enable server admins to control races. Other people then created programs that did track rotation, and online racing became more attractive with no extra effort from Scawen.

Cons

Need to guard quality ("crap mods")
LFS may not have a lot of content, but it is of a high quality. By contrast, rFactor has a lot of mods that are rubbish. If you download a new car, it may take a while to find out that it has a fatal flaw that can not be solved with setup tweaks. To prevent such frustrations in LFS, there would need to be some kind of quality control.

A related issue is consistency. If the car and track that you use were made by different people, with different preferences concerning graphics, the car may look distinctly out of place on that track. LFS has no such problem now, as everything has gone through Eric's hands.

Compatibility with LFS patches
A change in the physics often means that the cars, and possibly the tracks, need to be updated. In some cases the car/track data must be extended, to support a new feature. In other cases a change in the physics calculations may require a re-balancing of car classes.

Anyhow, almost every new LFS patch will take a coordinated effort from the content creators to update their mods. Not updating will mean that the mod can no longer be used.

Versioning
A common complaint from users of rFactor is that when they want to race, it takes a long time to get the correct version of the cars and tracks that are used. If you have an hour of spare time and want to do some pickup racing, you don't want to wait for 15 minutes while the mod is being downloaded and installed.

Licensing
Your dream of racing the latest Ferrari on the Nordschleife may never come true, even if LFS was open to mods and an army of talented modders started working. The reason is that some car manufacturers and track owners jealously guard their property, and threaten modders with lawsuits. The only way out is to pay a hefty license fee, and who would pay for that in advance?

Thinning-out of online racing
Even though LFS has a large user base, most online racing takes place of a handful of car/track combos: FBM/BL, GTR/AS, BF1/KY, etc. If you prefer one of the other cars or tracks, you have difficulty finding people to race with.

This problem will get worse if modding is allowed. The majority will still flock around the popular combos, but the rest of the racers is spread out over an ever-increasing number of combinations. They must choose between racing alone, or choosing a combo that they don't know well enough to be competitive.

Conflict with LFS business model
LFS has three types of license: the free demo, the cheap S1 license, and the full S2. They contain the same software, and (almost) only differ in content. In other words: the LFS business model is built upon paying for content. The extra cars and tracks are the main incentive for demo users to buy LFS, and for S1 users to upgrade to S2.

If you allow third-party content, you must only allow it for S2 users, otherwise it will hurt the devs' income.

Difficult to modify LFS now
If you look at the car and track selection screens, and at the pages in LFS World, you can see that they are geared towards a fixed set of cars / tracks. When you get a lot of extra cars and tracks, these screens must be redesigned. What's more, this could also be true for the internals of LFS. That means that LFS and LFSW may need to be adapted in many places to accommodate the new content. From an engineering viewpoint this is not a wise thing to do, because LFS is nearing the final stages of S2 development. It may introduce all sorts of bugs which take a long time to iron out.

Con - Wrong type of customer. We'd end up with far far too many Fast'N'Furious/NFS/Ricer style 'vehicles' (which may or may not also come under the crap mods section) made in 10 seconds by eejits. Soon the game is flooded with rubbish (some of might be good quality rubbish, but rubbish nonetheless), and it ends up taking a year to find the version of the mod you wanted to play...

If a strict system of quality control, and some method of filtering car types (road/race/rice/cruuze/shite etc) was implemented somehow then it MIGHT work. The game would need an autoupdate linked to a central database of mods and patches, and it must be able to 'downgrade' a mod to a previous version if you have a later version than is being used on a server... If it's a free-for-all like rFactor then I'm stricty against the concept.

Con - if LFS is allowed to be moddable, then a lot more work really needs to be put in to support as many options as possible. For example, if somebody wants to create a realistic mod of some American car, it invariably requires a solid axle, which LFS currently does not model. For a larger list: progressive springs, velocity sensitive damping, third springs, mass dampers, better aero modelling, more diff types, more suspension types (solid/swing/torsion/multi-link), bushing deflection, control over tyre parameters, etc. This is a lot of work to get all that working correctly.

Con - the devs would need to polish their development tools extensively for public release, which is no doubt very time consuming and is time that Scawen couldn't spend developing LFS directly.

Addition to Bobs Con #1 - Modelling of monoshock suspension, with belleville washer stacks and droop limiting capability.

con - you cant mod something that is half baked, which effectively closes the doors for 3rd party content until 2039 (approx.)

They managed it with rFactor. And GTR. And plenty of other unfinished 'sims'.

Pro - Suggestion that not enough players to populate new tracks is self-defeating. How many players have left due to boredom? A new track every 6 months would definitely generate new business and we could dump some of the less popular tracks we have now.

Imho, LFS needs new tracks. People have already left LFS and jumped into other sims. People have already got bored and there is a significant amount of people who used to race a lot but don't race at all because of boredom.

As I see LFS would benefit hugely from allowing users to create fictious tracks for LFS. Not cars, just tracks. Making a simple but thorough checklist of items that need to be in place before the track is accepted by the devs and then usable online would cut down a lot the amount of crap and I'm sure within a year we would have few very stunning new venues. With the checklist in place eric could concentrate on that what he's been doing the last 4 years. Interiors, cars and texture updates. The tracks could be publicly betatested offline by us, average forum goers for bugs and missing items and finalized and only thing left of for the devs would be to double check it. Naturally a system like this would require some coding from Scawen and Victor to make it work with LFS and LFSw. Nothing huge though. In one way it is a win win situation.

With the current way of things are progressing I'd guess that majority of new players are drifters, cruisers and others who have not so serious focus on racing that the users had who joined few years earlier. There's not anything wrong with that though, there is a catch though. I have nothing against new users being cruisers and drifters. It means that I can't race the FZ50, RAC os LX6 online with anyone because no one is interested racing them. I can drift those cars though with many servers with lots of people.

With controlled modding as I described above I'd see that certain amount of people would come back racing LFS and it would also make drifting into proper drifting and racing into proper racing. Drifters would finally have good drifting tracks and racers would have new tracks.

Especially with the recent launch of iracing people are nagging about how much it costs. With controlled modding (user made tracks) and proper implementation of it LFS could cause some serious issues to iracing and its pricing model. But most importantly LFS could gain momentum, more racers online and more new racing-orientated players. Naturally there is always a group of people who'd really like to see more real life tracks in LFS but the way it goes that stuff is better left for racing who does it the best.

The devs could keep high standards with the tracks which would make it impossible to get crap into LFS. It would also keep LFS alive thruogh these long development cycles and somewhat small updates.

Pro - Shows other users their design of how they would like the LFS cars to be

Pro - Cars car be different if you can modify them in your own way, as said in OP.

Before I address individual points I will make my opinion clear. I would support a tightly controlled system where good quality community generated cars and tracks would be added to S1, S2 or possibly as separate purchases. Community content integration (I'll call it CCI for brevity :P )

I outlined how it could work in this post but not everyone would be bothered to read it so I will c and p it here.

1. The idea is pitched to a number of "gatekeepers" (possibly like beta testers plus maybe a few). They would either approve the concept, reject it for one of three reasons. Stupid idea, too similar to existing, or would require much new coding. These would be logged and if they want to the devs could override.
   
2. During the process they would take interest if they have done previous content for LFS and quality of other sim stuff.
   
3. As LFS doesn't have a V10 3 litre single seater with wide track and slicks it gets approved.
   
4. If JB gets the green light, he starts making his Formula Example model in 3D Application Of Choice. Physics come later.
   
5. During the process of production the "gatekeepers" will monitor (Hi how's the car going, can I have a look etc). More so if their track record is smaller or not so good.
   
6. Once the car is modelled and textured it would be put in to a special development copy of LFS for the modder(s). It would be watermarked, only allowed to be unlocked by one or two LFS licences etc. The physics would be as per pitch.
   
7. Continual testing to improve it to a good standard.
   
8. Beta testing, followed by inclusion if good enough.
   

I will address wsinda's cons first

Quality control : That could be pre-screened by having a group of handpicked gatekeepers. If Scawen is Sir Alan Sugar, they would be his team of Margaret Mountfords. The gatekeepers could monitor stuff being made before it's ready and then test/feedback. Until things are of a good standard they will be confined to the testing copies of the gatekeepers.
Consistency : That kinda comes under quality control really.
Compatibility with LFS patches : I don't think that is a common issue. Rebalancing classes could be handled rather simply.
Versioning : Simple. Stick it in when it's ready and updates come in the LFS patches. Job's a goodun.
Licensing : Also simple, only let fictional content be added - unless there is a realistic chance that the rights could be blagged and it would be Scawen doing the contacting.
Thinning-out of online racing : I just don't buy that one, sorry. The number of users may increase and if there is an appropriate stream of new content the landscape will change.
Conflict with LFS business model : Not an issue if it were to be an "all in one" solution with CCI as the stufgf would be put in S1, S2 or possibly in separate purchases (with a small kickback going to the CCI content maker)
Difficulty to modify LFS now : Yes, the UI would need to be changed - but think of the upsides.

Tristan's con about inappropriate stuff : That would be filtered out.
Bob's con about new parts : True - I guess CCI makers would have to stay within the current confines.
BurnOut's arguement : I simply don't buy that one.

Quote from duke_toaster :

BurnOut's arguement : I simply don't buy that one.

Then you should think again because if you add now a new, say, DTM class, and Scawen adds support for breakable parts in the following patch, where do you think your mod would end?

My 'arguement' wasnt a complain about slow paced development, in fact any community add on would be unusable as soon as a new official patch is released, unless a huge amount of effort is put into in, which in my opinion, is highly unlikely to happen.

You dont need to look too far away, the only mods that are allowed ATM are InSim ones, yet even a few of the most succesful ones from Kegetys are now obsolete for the simple fact that the they are not updated every time insim changes.

As for Tristan's reply: Im not familiar with rFactor and GTR patch policy, but I thought those games' patches are more bugfixes than evolutions of the game engine, not in the same league as LFS patches.

Imho, the car modding should not be allowed, for few reasons:
1) the devs would need to open up LFS quite a bit making it more vulnerable to hacking and allowing us to see how the physics work
2) creating realistic handling car is a lot harder than a realistic track. Surely a track needs more work but most of it is either laborous or creative, not something you may need to spends days and weeks to simply understand what for the physics engine wants some number and what does it do. Creating a working car with good suspension etc. requires a lot knowledge about the car and the physics engine, especially when you are building a fictional car because you can't just copy lenths, positions and masses from few other cars to make it work.
3) the devs could create the cars by itself, keeping the S1/S2/S3 separation valid
4) LFS already has quite interesting selection of very different cars. If the community could create new cars and classes it might divide the community unlike the tracks imho. When you go online you usually want to drive certain car, not certain track. Even with the awful FBM and sucky scirocco I'm still having the confidence that the devs know the best what car to put next in LFS

I don't think a group of gatekeepers is a good idea. Technically you want tracks that fulfill the technical terms the devs have set. Imho, car modding is just a can of worms, there are so many things that can either be wrong or go out of sync relatively quick when a physics update is released. A track won't go so easily out of sync because the track is a lot less affected by the changes in the core. (Yes, that's common sense. And no, I don't know how the inner parts of LFS.exe work)

I think just tracks should be able to made but with a tight screening so no crappy tracks get in, and i don't think cars should be made becuase like a few said in the thread the physics would not be correct probbibly so if you just let modders to make tracks then hopfully the Scawen and the team would go just making cars, beucase then we would know that the cars would have good true physics

Re the whole realism with cars issue. If I remember correctly the main issue with rF is tyre physics. In rF a mod needs to have its own type of tyre. In LFS we largely have all the tyres cooked - a new car would roll on ROAD_NORMALS, ROAD_SUPERS, SLICK_R1-4, hybrids or knobblys. And as they would be fictional cars there would not need to be the same absolute detail on the physics provided they don't handle stupidly.

E : Hyperactive - there are some sorts of car that are not present in LFS. Mid 1990s supercars would be pretty good fun for the roadcar fans - Le Mans Prototypes could be a brucie bonus, then there's no unwinged single seater a la FFord.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Con - if LFS is allowed to be moddable, then a lot more work really needs to be put in to support as many options as possible.

Good point.

Quote :

Con - the devs would need to polish their development tools extensively

Not necessarily. If Eric can work with the tools without going insane, then so can modders.

Quote from BurnOut69 :

con - you cant mod something that is half baked, which effectively closes the doors for 3rd party content until 2039 (approx.)

I already mentioned that, under "Compatibility with LFS patches".

Quote from Drafter :

Software has to continually develop, or be overtaken

Maybe, but we're talking about content here, not about the software.

Quote from Furiously-Fast :

Pro - Cars car be different if you can modify them in your own way, as said in OP.

I wasn't talking about car upgrades, tuning etc. The drivers in a race will still have the same car, but not made by the LFS devs.

Quote from duke_toaster :

I outlined how it could work in this post

What you describe sounds a lot like extending the development team: car and track makers working under strict supervision (directly or indirectly) of Scavier, kickback fees for the modders, ... I'm not saying this isn't a viable way of working, because other sims were made in that way (e.g. GTR). But it goes against Scavier's philosphy.

Quote :

Compatibility with LFS patches: I don't think that is a common issue.

It is a very important issue. For a car designer who spends many hours tweaking the physics, it's an unpleasant surprise if he has to re-do most of his work because of next month's patch. If it happens often he may decide to abandon his car, making the users of his car unhappy.

Quote from wsinda :

Not necessarily. If Eric can work with the tools without going insane, then so can modders.

You've just made the huge assumption that Eric ISN'T insane. Why else do you think they don't let him on the forums?

Or the content could be submitted in a standard model format?

IMHO the only "pro" of adding mod support would be that threads like this would cease to exist.

And concerning the gatekeepers: that's a mighty responsible and work intensive position for volunteers, as I guess they wouldn't get paid by Scavier.

Quote from Bob Smith :

You've just made the huge assumption that Eric ISN'T insane. Why else do you think they don't let him on the forums?

You've just made the huge assumption that all people on the forums are sane...

This is the first time I've heard that the devs stated that LFS will not be open to serious modding. I've never heard them say that it would either but I always assumed that the possibility would remain an open one, however remote.

Come to think of it, I have a pretty good knack of missing these dev statements. I only just found out about the new car

Quote from Electrik Kar :

This is the first time I've heard that the devs stated that LFS will not be open to serious modding. I've never heard them say that it would either but I always assumed that the possibility would remain an open one, however remote.

LFS is closed for modding right now. The devs did mention the possibility, but it would happen sometime after S3 final was released. For now, modding is not possible. It's even illegal to post hacks (e.g. the McLaren F1 supercar that someone got in-game) on the forum.

Yeah i know i am a demo racer, but i want to see where the game will go in the future. So i want to make a proposal.

If we want new cars and new tracks, we can create official design contests every 6 months/year with a dev that see which is best to develop.
I think it will increase the quality, without have nasty and bugged mods. The devs will make all the code/3D model behind.

Quote from ColeusRattus :

And concerning the gatekeepers: that's a mighty responsible and work intensive position for volunteers, as I guess they wouldn't get paid by Scavier.

So is forum moderation.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Con - Wrong type of customer. We'd end up with far far too many Fast'N'Furious/NFS/Ricer style 'vehicles' (which may or may not also come under the crap mods section) made in 10 seconds by eejits. Soon the game is flooded with rubbish (some of might be good quality rubbish, but rubbish nonetheless).

One man's trash is another man's treasure, I'm afraid (I know its very very difficult for you Tristan), you just have to accept others for what they like and do, not just call them morons because their tastes are different.

I say yes to modding, but devs should keep some kind of control, there should be a central 'modding' site (like rFactor central, *runs and fears the wrath of the forum LFS nazis.*), which only uploads decent stuff (or perhaps only what His Highness Tristan thinks is good and proper. :razz.

Look at GP4, it was very very hard to mod, and now Geoff Crammond's Microprose is long gone, look at GPL, relatively easy to mod, and Sold Out Games are still releasing it occasionally because of the demand.

GPL is a fine example of what good modding can do, that game has been completely transformed by a very dedicated few individuals.

The one massive problem that stands in the way of modding right now is the fact that game is continually changing, but when this all stops sometime in the future then there is no excuse to mod the game.

If the devs don't allow modding after S3 final, then LFS will die very quickly as people get fed up with the zero development.

Quote from duke_toaster :

So is forum moderation.

having done my fair share of moderating forums, I rather doubt it's even remotely comparable to what is thougnt to be basically a Q&A department for mod developers.