You are actually complaining that the graphics in a brand new racing simulator are too good. Take a deep breath, go for a walk, and think about that for a little while.
I think he may mean in part, to have a chance of running this game at maximum quality and 60fps you need at the moment a system that exceeds the published maximum hardware requirements. Even then there can be issues with stuttering, lag and tearing. Of course this should be sorted as the game moves towards gold, but some folk miss the realities of beta testing. I too was disappointed, but a look around the forum soon showed the letters WIP plastered all over it, so I tinker with all the settings to get it as good as I can and wait patiently for the next update. Maybe having users pay the full price from the off has led some people to think the game is closer to finish than it appears?
Which would be their confusion or misunderstanding based on them likely not reading every time we have said so. Although I don't think that's his point. He is basically annoyed this is not rFactor v1.3, with system requirements to match. The fact is: It's never going to be that. It's a new product, with new features, and new system requirements. You either have enough money, or you don't. You either have a capable system, or you don't. There's obviously some refinements to do getting the software more along lines with the system requirements we posted, but again, that's why we're here testing. There should be no confusion at all about that.
Which, frankly, is pretty sad. Same thing goes for the Project CARS development. People just don't understand that these titles are in development.
In the current game state, you could add plenty of AI cars and use time acceleration-option (default key: "x") to make them lay some rubber on the track before you enter the track yourself. Give it a try. I'm sure rf2 will have an option for default rubber on track then.
There may be something else to take into account: current version of rF2 is a step back in some aspects comparing to rF1. Just to name a few: damage, replays. Even if any one agreed it is test version, I think some (if not most) of us was expecting a successor, means product which contains all features of the predecessor, with improved and added features. Instead of this we got some prototypes of features, early builds, with missing some features known well from previous products. Yes, it may be surprising and even frustrating.
If anyone was expecting a successor at this point it's their own fault. The earliest point where the game needs to have all of the features of rF1 working and/or improved is when they release it.
Really? Why to show public product on final testing stage (means beta) which is "worse" than predecessor in matter of available features? To me 2 ways are natural: - company says: we have product in early development stage - we want to work on this together or - company gives beta version to wipe out the last issues. If scenarios are mixed, naming is not clear enough etc, it is quite natural that people feel confused. I couldn't call it: their fault.
Easier said than done. This is the type of software when sometimes you must drop several features to work on one core feature. Only when your work on core feature is finished you may update these dropped features to work with the new core. I see it happen all the time with various software. I got stuck with Blender 2.49, because 2.5 did no longer support bevel tool. It wasn't until version 2.63 when they put it back. That's because they have new mesh core functionality, so all tools and scripts needed to be rewritten. When things are changing at the core, than it's hard to keep all the rest up to date. In that case you just drop it, finish core and then put everything back in. Then you're not open minded I think it's better not to make assumptions and then expect thngs to go that way.
Agree. But then it cannot be a beta any more. That's the point and I know you know it On other hand it really doesn't matter. Not every one simracer is software developer. People has rights to have expectations and may be disappointed.
It is not only an online game. It certainly does have very good online racing capabilities but that is not its exclusive use. The game supports AI cars and lots of people race offline only. Like me for example. When you have a horrible connection online racing is impossible. My ping values peg the meter.
Why not? No, I'm not following you on this one. I've seen features dissapearing temporarily from officialy released software, so why not from software at beta stage? Is it forbidden or something? Take image gallery for example. A webpage where you can view, comment and rate pictures. One day they update user interface - you can view photos in this new interface, but for time being you cannot comment or rate pictures. They restore that functionality after a day or two. Seems completely natural to me. Yes, they could have waited until they got all things working in the web gallery, but obviously it wasn't the only possibility. That's what being open minded is all about - not assuming what's natural to you as the only possibility. People have expectations when they see a fancy trailer and decide to see that movie in cinema. They often end up dissapointed aswell. Will they ever learn is a lot better question This is similar but instead of fancy trailer we got this post: LINK It says: And you're saying people had expectations.... Who's to blame? Did someone deceive us? Some people say so, but at the same time they fail to point out the source of that deception or their high expectations. That's probably because no one is used to pointing finger at himself This reminds me of a dialogue from "Unthinkable" when agent Brody, suprized with "military methods" says: - "This is not what we talked about." - "That's because you only listen to yourself." I think it's worth a thought. It's common that we are the ones actually responsible for our expectations. Who else?
Beta means nothing. It's an internal process and can mean any number of different things that said company decides. There is a broad, vague understanding of what beta means but that's about it. Those complaining about what a beta means point by point in their own personal world, and how ISI are somehow off the mark because they aren't living up to what they made up in their head, is childish and unrealistic. Only ISI truly know their process, the rest of us are just here for the ride.
yep.. that is what beta should be. There is no word for: - experiments or prototyping new features - implementing new features - missing announced features - removed features due to working on another ones etc beta should be used for: testing of product which is almost ready to go. And for sure it is not synonym of WIP. There are terms like alpha, beta, RC which has known meaning. I cannot see a reason to change their meaning. Do you? Of course any one is free to call any stage in way he want. But then we we end up with a mess - no one will know real state of the product. Right now it looks like we have just such situation here. Some people are disappointed because they though/expected that the term is used in common meaning. Others are trying to explain that beta have not to be beta, and may be used for any development stage developer wants. Is it what you need? But it is not about naming itself but about how names are interpreted by majority. Look around and watch how many people hasn't understood ISI's intentions. Is there something wrong with all those people or is possible that wrong term has been used for naming current development stage? I'm sure calling the stage in right way wouldn't hurt anyone.
No one is perfect. This pretty much means there is something wrong with everyone. We all have our flaws, different ones, but I mentioned a very common one in my previous post How many times you had people misunderstanding your posts? Same story here, really. You don't have to look far for similar examples - today someone asked for help with Clio on our forum. You were surprized he didn't read first post So let's not go back to this beta thing over and over again. It's getting old. Really
