Thanks, your are right, the better way is like you said : Like on rF1 : http://rfactor.net/web/rf1/features/ It will be enough to have a clear idea on what we can expect to race, for future customer it will be a big addition (because reading the whole forum is hard to get these information). For the other points of your post, I understand what you mean in the percentage and evaluation of time to get finished. Thank you for your answer.
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. And obviously it'll be easy to note 'under development' or 'not yet available' on that feature list. I'm actually considering starting to announce licenses so far fairly soon, and putting them on here once I have, but obviously listing them as 'not yet available' even though some haven't started yet, do you think that'll just cause more confusion? Separate list, perhaps, under the dev corner?
This is the best way to do it, the list of feature with under development and not yet available, it can be another 3rd status, stable to indicate the feature you consider "finished" in the current step of your development. I think you need a separate page for the feature and the available content is better. The http://rfactor.net/web/rf2/rf2dl/ is good to know what it is testable as content, and the feature page can indicate the features status. For a licence you can, list them in feature page in a dedicated section (with short information), and when there is content testable for this licence, list them in addition in DL page with your car/track detailed page.
And another example, where I said absolutely nothing about what the person has said I did. Some have difficulty handling even little bits of information, without taking it somewhere it never was.
That sounds nice, but on the other hand, I really like the guessing, and speculating from time to time as well, and every time something is confirmed (or leaked) be all exited about what is comming up
OK, I think those things (feature list, and announced content list - we'll keep some surprises) should give a different feel to the communication. And I don't think they'll impact us as much as most other methods.
I personally think you firstly have to be reasonable, to expect a full refund on anything that isn't broken in the first place after a year is audacious, the game is perfectly playable (on a single screen), it's not broken or damaged in any way. I'm not happy with RF2 (can't run 3 screens) but it's still perfectly fine and I've had many hours of enjoyment with it, probably got more than my $99.00 worth already.
Personally I don't find that kind of feature lists very useful. It's a typical list for marketing purposes, that you usually find on webpages or boxes. For example, in Physics group we have this feature: This is all info we get on suspension. Now let's say someone wants to know if rFactor can support NASCAR suspension. He will get no such answer from this list. I'd call it partial communication at most. But if your list would name all supported suspension types for front and rear, with list of additional features (like track bars), then we could speak of actual communication.
Support for Solid rear axle would be nice considering this sim has a very concentrated focus on vintage racing. Unless that is what 4-link is indicating.