How are we doing on moving out of the open beta phase?

Tim Wheatley clearly said on the 25th of august

"The next update for RF2 , Build 102 will feature Velomobile Racing with the ability to customize and upgrade your Velomobile. Users will be able to replace chains as well as receive a tub of ISI brand oil for there bike at home as a Souvenir. ISI will also be running a competition where the top 3 fastest Velomobile drivers win a 1990s F1 car and a day of training at brans hatch from Michael Schumacher. "

I cannot remember where he posted this but he definitely said it and Tim is not the kind of guy to brake his word !

 

lol

 

This what I think of that list of problems:

- realroad is far from finished at the moment - grip levels, visual issues,
+ it is good enough

- poor performance
+ it runs normally on my machine, which is 2yrs old and costs 1000$

- lighting, shadows, HDR - lot of things that need improvements
+ I am sure it can be improved, but it is quite alright compared to the initial release

- tire model, tire heating, tire wear, driving at different conditions - far from finished
+ isn't rF2 like the best tire model on the planet? Seems so to me.

- cars and tracks needs a lot of improvements (GFX and physics)
+ I think rF2 is not about "original" content, but the quality of that is sufficient

- lot of missing things - wipers, rain drops, car damages, etc.
+ Agree on rain and wipers, but I think it is safe to assume that visual car damage will be the same as in rF1

- lot of small bugs and issues in every area
+ M$ releases it's products with miles of problems in the issue tracking system. It is illogical to fix all the problems in a software, unless it will be used in critical errors cause critical problems (space, auto industry, etc)

- online gaming is also far from perfect
+ that is what I am hoping to improve as well. Profile content (race history, ratings etc), small tournaments (like 3 races, standings, etc), leagues all that in game for public users to have more social experience.

- and so on...
+ it is just so much work, hope that ISI can pull it off

After going gold, I am hoping gravel surface physics, rally, rally cross and why not nascar on dirt or what not.

 

This time it is about original content my friend

I've been saying since the beginning, rF2 feels different; it won't be just a shell for mods.

And Tim has confirmed this many many times: rF2's selling point will be lots licensed (original) content with more (original) content for years to come.

rF2 will not rely on mods to sell the game. We will see rF2 stand on it's own, with ISI content being the selling point.

 

NASCAR doesn't run on dirt, that would be USAC, IMCA or any number of other sponsoring bodies, but not NASCAR

The problem with software now a days is that we as consumers are willing to put up with the release of products that are not finished so that we can get them sooner. If we didn't purchase software until it was a finished product, developers would concentrate more on getting things done right instead of stating that they will release patches to fix issues. I can't remember how many titles I have purchased where the developer promised that they would patch the bugs and the only thing that was presented to the public was more buggy content instead of fixes for known issues.

I hope ISI is not one the companies that is so worried about releasing the product that the quality falls off the table, and the fact that beta is lasting longer than expected is an indication that they are doing what they can to get things right.

 

NASCAR ran on dirt for more years than it has run on anything else, I believe?

I think you're perhaps tarring every developer there with the same brush in what are very, very different situations.

ISI represented rFactor2 as an unfinished product at all times. It was chosen to be released as a test version, when it needed more open testing.

Other devs which release unfinished software (and I know, because I've bought them), often don't represent it as unfinished software. The reason for this, most often, is the marketing department or the heads of the studio, who set a release date that the developer cannot make, forcing them to release as unfinished without telling the customer that is what they're doing. You'll most often notice this is happening when both the DVD and the first bugfixes are released on the same day.

IMHO, that is two very different things.

You're also perhaps not seeing the fact we've said that this isn't a 'final product' launch. We've no intention of stopping the updates or the content releases when the testing ends. We have long term plans (all of which are pretty fluid and can be pulled or pushed where we need them) for years. I've signed major track licenses which we have no intention of even starting work on this year. In my opinion, the only comparable developer situation I can think of, is EGOSOFT and the X space game series, as they release a pretty good product (which we aren't at yet) and then improve, update and add to it for free, for years. They don't do open testing though.

 

Your taking my response wrong Tim I am on your side as I know this is a beta and has been released as such. What I was referring to was all the companies including MS that release product as finished and they still have tons of bugs/issues. I have no issues taking part in a beta as long as I know that is what I am doing.

I have beta tested a number of software titles and am all for helping find and eliminate the bugs. Unfortunately, my experience with the other companies is that they respond and acknowledge the bug, but then do nothing to remove it, they just release other new content instead. One such company had the title out for 8 years releasing 4 or 5 expansion packs and the software still had some of the original bugs identified in beta testing. As indicated in my final sentence, I feel you guys are going about it right mainly due to you moving the release date in order to try and get things working the way you want instead of releasing the product with the promise that those things would be fixed.

 

hmm

why do you comparing rf2 to other released titles? are you trying to say that rf2 might be released right now as gold? or maybe rf2 will be free of issues when gold?

Maybe I'm lucky man, but I don't know single gold released title being on early dev stage comparable to rf2.


what is a difference between
1. releasing gold with a few issues, get money and patch it after release - any software has issues, it's the rule
2 releasing product at early devel, get money and say 'have fun'?

isn't the second scenario a way to get money earlier? open testing? it is correct way if product is almost finished, not while prototyped.

to me it is very simmilar to iracing. while released gold, they took money for product which will not be able to simulate even fuel consumption. instead of this they was sayin ir will never be finished because of infinity developement. fanboys was happy. I was laughing

of course anyone has own preferences. But I like B.I.S way: They releaseD ArmaII, was patching it constantly through a few years, and now they are ready to release Arma III.

from developer best practices, any software require to be refactored after some time. almost always it is better to rewrite whole code from time to tome while implementing new technologies and/or techniques. I don't believe that rf2 may be constantly developed for lets say 10 years.
once it will require to rewrite core and other parts and then it will turn into brand new produt - rf3 or so.

 

Ah, I see what you meant. I sometimes wish we had a public bug tracker to let people see that we're reading, but everything ends up in the private one anyway. It is fairly normal for non 'show stopper' bugs to remain for a while, because they're not show stoppers, but they should be fixed eventually. It's pretty sad when they aren't and yes, I've seen that too with games I've tested and bought.

 

Oh BTW Tim, this quote might be of interest being as it has to do with my earlier statement The question asked was "when was the last dirt race run for the Sprint Cup.

I guess this means that NASCAR has run dirt tracks quite a bit, but is not currently a sanctioning body for dirt racing. I suppose if we can have 1966 F1 to F3, we should be fine with lates 60's dirt cars.

 

I guess I was thinking pre-1949, but yeah as a sanctioning body yeah you're right.

 

I also found out that the original Daytona track was setup with the back straight on sand, front straight on a narrow road, (A1A) and both turns were sandy and heavily rutted. From what I read the heavier cars would get bogged down on the turns and the lighter Fords would handle the ruts and win the races.

 

I think this would make an awesome mod. The track is half dirt/sand and half asphalt. Coupled with late 50's era stock cars... well damn.

 

From this post:

Does this sound like a way to get money earlier?

I remember you saying recently, that it's possible iRacing's approach is the best.

A simple reply on the forum would be enough for me. For example, I've listed some issues once (LINK) and still don't know if anyone took note I'm pretty sure you're aware of most of those (some have been fixed in b90), but since I've listed multiple issues in one post, there could be something there you didn't notice yourselves.

 

Ok, my system is marginal so I would rather wait to get an updated system as long as possible to maximize value and performance and minimize compatability issues. I look forward to the first release version.

 

Performance and compatibility are considered show stoppers, they do have priority.

 

I have seen that video, it had even sound which at that time was not a standard. If I don't remember wrong, some poor guy drove too close to ocean, I think there was water splashing

Modern health&safety minded might require years of therapy after such race event, number 42 convertible has no rollcage or at least can't see any with my poor eyes. I remember from video how track got so bumpy from some places that cars were literally jumping to air.

Now that is racing

 

@KSzczech
Looks like you missed my point.

Yes it is. Advantage of situation when simracers/rf1 fans starving for rf2 for years.

You remember correct. But you are out of context this time. And I really don't understand why you quoting this without background. I'm not going to explain differences. but it is not fair from you.

 

You see things in a very cynical way

I don't know which is worse: The fact that you think it, or the fact that you believe it.

Either way, it's your own theory you've invented in your own head and you've convinced yourself it's fact.

(my signature is so appropriate for this forum)

 

Why cynical? Nothing's cynical here.
It is quite natural that people buy everything if they are waiting long enough. Additionally if they have any chance to get what they are waiting for.

But it is not a point. I asked for differences between two approaches; why one chosen by ISI is better?
I personally would like more to get final product, and a few patches after in case of issues. And I can bet most people would like it too. Don't you think?
But hey, then community would wait next year or two for this final/real-beta rF2 release. My guess is it was not acceptable for ISI. Isn't it possible?


@KS, thanx. I removed it.