... So, ISI, as I'm sure by now you have plenty of Beta testers slaving away reporting bugs, glitches etc I thought I'd let you know about a novel idea that goes hand in hand with Beta testing : "DEVELOPER UPDATES" ! It's quite simple, one of your members of staff finds the time to start a Developer Thread and updates this thread about once a week with the current state of the beta, ie what fixes you're working on, any new content, timescales etc etc. If you need examples to work from try the iracing or pCars forums, the developer threads there should give you a good baseline.
So we're meant to search through hundreds of threads and collate the info ourselves? You don't think a weekly developer update would be a good idea? I'd love to know how car or track building is going as well as updates on the current issues. And surely it's easier for ISI to have a closed thread detailing this rather than individually replying to people all over the forums?!
This is a beta test phase, responses primarily involve what will be updated and what issues will be fixed. Considering most people who have issues (should) search for the answers first they'll find what they need. I'm not saying it could hurt, (though one issue is always that features and updates may change and that's a long discussion) but I really don't have an issue with the current approach. Remember, too, that ISI is quite a small developer and there is already a twitter feed, a wiki, a website news feed and so forth.
I reckon we will see more of a refined "developer update" thread once the initial round of BETA testing is out of the way. I reckon ISI removed a lot of stuff to focus testing of certain areas. If I was to take a punt on that it is the MOD Packaging system. I think once that is out the way things are gonna get interesting
oufff, somebody mentioned the i-word. If they do it, it can't be a good idea. So let's remain without feedback and let's fill the forums with same stuff, even though ISI is working on it. Spyder +1. This would obviously be a nice thing to have. At least a section of "identified issues", would avoid people that are posting again and again the same issues... I understand that ISI wouldn't like to publish deadline. (and I wouldn't either in their place)
Why would you turn this in to some stupid brand war? I'll say here and now that iRacing is a great product. Seriously, man, what the hell? Let's avoid this trainwreck and move on with the discussion shall we?
come on... this is called sarcasm... nothing else. It's getting a bit crazy over here: Check the "What is the best SIM " threat... Back to this one: Spyder made a very reasonable and polite request. If people don't want dvp updates OK, why immediately getting in "ISI protection mode". DVP updates are very common, calm down users and normally even lower the work of the developers: people are informed, post less and dvp can concentrate on reading post about new issues. I don't see anything to be argued about this request. ISI shall do it or not and there's certainly no disadvantage for any beta user. So why not letting this simply go?
I feel a bit spoiled these days being an Arma2/OA user I'm used to almost daily betas and reports. I've reported bugs at 3am and sometimes had them fixed by the next morning and that's for a 2year old game. I don't really expect the same from other developers but the waiting can get frustrating when you have a particular problem that needs fixing.
Kaemmer never posts in the forums and C.A.R.S isn't a sim. Relax, the beta has barely been out. Most of us here are quite mature and don't need a minute by minute update.
I'm glad someone finally realizes this. Everyone seems to be too hypnotized by the shiny DX11 models and tracks to see that.
Why isn't C.A.R.S a sim? Because the physics are poor at the moment? That just makes it a lower quality sim, but it is still a sim!
The amount of hate mail replies and messages I've received on YouTube for criticising C.A.R.S' physics is truly phenomenal. I said that the cars look like they're "on rails" and that rF2 and GTR3 will likely be the best sims of this gaming generation. They all went ballistic!
There's a grey area between arcade and simulation. I haven't played C.A.R.S but from what I've seen I would classify it as a game in that grey area, other titles I would put in this area are games from the Forza franchise, Gran Turismo, F1 2011, etc. While they're not necessarily arcade, they're definitely not simulators either.
Fer chrissakes, pCars is PRE-ALPHA. There is a looooong way to go in all departments, including physics. It is far too early to say it isn't a sim.
Race Sim Central has a good classification Simulation Racer A driving simulation, or sim, is intended to literally simulate driving a car. This means strict adherence to real life physics when calculating vehicle dynamics. The software itself also tends to have little gameplay structure, leaving it up to the user to create their own experience. Realistic Racer Realistic Racing Games were once synonymous with simulation games, but as driving simulators became more realistic--more complex and difficult--their mainstream appeal started to diminish. Realistic racing games may still have very detailed physics and some (or many) elements of simulators, but always ignore or de-emphasize certain elements that are more related to a simulator and less related to a video game. Arcade Racer Arcade Racing Games are made primarily with fun and accessibility in mind; all arcade racers have physics models, but the object of an arcade game is to provide quick, addictive fun, so the physics are compensated accordingly. But then the arguement comes down to personal choice, what you believe is realistic...the eternal sim racer arguement
