The Lotus 49 is in PCars, iRacing and Assetto Corsa. Will rF2 be the only serious sim that doesn't have this car? It would appear that Lotus is happy to license the 49 to any and all takers. Is it too expensive for ISI? Is that why we have the Brabham? A direct comparison would be awesome...as we have with the Skippy in iRacing and rF2.
I think you answered your own question. Plus there is no need to re hash what everyone else is doing. Originality goes a long way.
Iirc Tim said a long time ago that Lotus were a bit on the expensive side... (which is a great pity) I`m sure I`ll be corrected if wrong on that.
It is shame that Gordon Murray's BT46B (vacuum) car is Bernie's and therefore probably out of question... That would be nice car to drive. Cheers!
Two manufacturers just started talking (finally). Will try. However, with no micro (should that be large) transactions for each item we release, we have to balance NEW sales (as you guys are of no financial benefit to us, effectively), with the licensing fees and cost of production. Once I get their figure, and find they won't be beaten down any, I'll be able to tell you whether they'll happen.
Great news. However, you'd get some sales income if the product was release-ready and not in beta form. In fact, if someone could promise it would be finished (with proper quality) in the originally promised time frame, I'd pay twice. Right now, the glacial pace of development is the biggest enemy to revenue, not a lack of willing customers out there who want a finished product.
The devs work at a fast pace I've certainly not seen anywhere else. To work faster would require more staffing, and that's a difficult thing to do both in finding the right individual, and again - financially. I can only suggest going and reading some comments on a Maxis product lately if you want to feel better about things.
That might be true seeing things from the inside Tim...but I can say that everyone I speak to that sees things from the outside thinks this game has moved along at an extremely slow pace (usually with a reference of Gjon's statement at the start of rF2 sales that we would be in beta for approx 6 months) and a lot of people still wont buy the game until its declared "gold"... they also say that the term "evolving" is bogus and its still well and truly in beta
I'd love to see any form of group C prototypes. I know ISI already got my $43.99 but not everybody is willing to commit $84 dollars into the lifetime purchase. These licenses help push the already-customers to either maintain a $12/year revenue or boost up to the $84. Apprehension from potential customers is definitely understandable given some expectations from rFactor 1 given it's stock and overall finished product (which we should all agree was extremely underwhelming in stock content and features). Bar a few aspects of simulation that the rf2 engine can offer, with not much content seemingly exploring it, there's still not much differentiation from rFactor to rFactor 2, as to be honest is still a beta version of game with differing levels of "v1.0" content, with a lot more still to be developed and implemented. Without having any metrics to track purchases, or expenditures on licensing, etc, it's really not possible for any of us to make any comments on rFactor 2's health, like so many people so often do (3 posts above this for example), clearly without any knowledge of marketing/finances/game development (which I don't)/or other fields where you need an education or work experience in to make educated comments.
that's good then good luck with all that, I won't begin to try and understand the dealings with licenses but if I were a team owner is be happy to have my car in RF2, obviously price is their stumbling block though. maybe you need to sway them with a free copy!
How you can say there's still not much differentiation from rFactor to rFactor 2? There's more than meet the eyes, i'm shocked how much people say that and not fall into knowledge that you have a live reflections, HDR, super improved tires, flex body and "Real Road"!!! no sim in the market has a living track like rfactor 2. Everyone stay with the gimme gimme graphics, gimme gimme cars & tracks but no one realize that we have pure gold in our hands.
Yes, SimCity 2013 that I was eagerly awaiting for about 7 years. Fortunately I was wise enough to not buy that train wreck, but it is heart-breaking that they could have simply updated SC4 with modern graphics and fixed the few annoying qualities of that title and had a winner on their hands. Luckily, you guys are not messing with the basic formula of rF1. My comment is not without sympathy. We can all tell that resources are very tight at ISI. It wouldn't surprise me if we pulled back the curtain the team might win some award for doing the most with the least. Unfortunately, other than a few die-hard geeks like me who hang out on this board, no one else cares. They only care about the product and the result. Your team has steadfastly refused to bend their ways to accommodate the "normal" gaming and sim market. In one good way, by focusing on physics and FFB first, you impressed everyone right out the box with an amazing foundation/platform to build on. That was many, many months ago. The stubborness also has a slew of negative implications that I hate to think are going to overwhelm the one big positive one: 1. Graphics issues from the early days of rF1 are still there. I am a physics over graphics guy when it comes to racing sims, but the real world is superficial and first impressions count for a lot. We know there are entire titles based on nothing more than graphics that outsell our favourite sims by a mile. Don't like it, but shining the eye-candy doesn't have to be first on the list, but it is now long overdue. 2. UI issues from rF1 still plague the usability of rF2. Those of us familiar with rF1 can get by, still with annoying issues, but someone new to the title is baffled. Lots of posts here to demonstrate it. Again, if you want to encourage sales, don't leave the fundamental user experience of the out-of-car part of the sim until the end, when it may be too late. Small incremental changes and fixes are OK while a total redesign is contemplated. Too much effort is required to find and then set-up very basic aspects of a race or practice session. 3. Information about what's included and what's to be included and when. Of course avoiding any criticism of vapourware is important, but taking a tell when things are done and when we feel like it/get it done attitude to the extent that you do pushes away all but the hard-core fans (as users) and modders. 4. Other competing titles are now catching-up and will get released in finished form ahead of rF2 taking away further revenue from the many who will not purchase multiple titles like us hard-core people. We all want rF2 to succeed for the same reasons that made rF1 such a success--modding and other companies buying the engine and using it as a platform for their specialized titles. If lack of resources now means that you will continue to fall further and further behind the advertised roll-out schedule, then you are between a rock and a hard place. You won't be seeing much new revenue and you risk losing the loyalty and future attention of those of us who have already paid. There is no magic solution, but "staying the course" with a lack of full disclosure of what's really likely to be possible in the coming months and just hoping the wheels don't fall off the bus is a recipe for a unrecoverable tail spin. I haven't bothered enumerating the details of the four items above--we know what they are and they have all been discussed on this board. However old and tired the discourse is, the issues are real and won't disappear on their own. I hope for the sake of rF2, ISI and everyone who works for ISI that there is a plan to emerge out of the current situation with a plan that will generate some revenue. One simple suggestion that might alleviate some congestion is to pay someone like feels3/Wojtek for their work. Here is a super-talented track maker and graphical expert who, if allowed to be a partial insider at ISI, could both produce even better tracks and reciprocate by helping to provide feedback on the development of the core itself. If people are working for free now, some might be interested in a contract situation that pays them something. You get to work with them and find out whether they could be a potential future employee. The product of their work is that rF2 APPEARS to be developing faster and with more appealing content. (Of course the most glaring example of this is people converting ISI rF1 tracks--the same one that supposedly ISI is working on! Make an agreement to utilize modder talent so that only ONE version of a track is getting attention. There aren't enough ISI and modder resources combined to waste talent duplicating efforts.) Another example is that the ISI team doesn't seem to have time to focus on HDR profiles. They are, quite honestly, an embarrassment, yet some have been developed by individuals on here (Tosch) that are stunning and/or at least show what can be done. Why not let someone like that partly in the door and under guidance and direction from ISI get the job done in short order for minimal cost. In some cases, people would do some work just to get an official credit and/or something for their resume if they are hoping to work in that field in the future. Each time a new build is released with no progress on so many fundamental issues, more potential future revenue is lost. Something needs to turn that tide around quickly. And to keep this oficially on topic, if you can't afford licensing like all your competitors, then it is even more imperative that the basic package get out the door and/or be developed enough to encourage modders to stick with it and develop content that is appealing and high quality. Content that ISI would otherwise have to do themselves.
I didn't say anything about how you feel. My response was purely offering an alternate perspective. That was the actual point of hitting reply.
Unfortunately it's only after you get through to them that they begin to think about potential benefits of that sort.
I think if everything that we *know* about was built and available, there wouldn't be many complaining about content. Off the top of my head I can think of 10-15 cars we've seen or heard are in development, or are coming eventually, so at what point are you going to stop licensing vehicles for content? I get the impression ISI are avoiding stock car oval content, probably because the alternatives are many, but I would bet that even an unlicensed stock car, together with IMS and some generic ovals, would bring in a stream of new customers - and money - that could then be used to license things you WANT to
