WiX "we" all hate you now...unless...you give us WSGT2 now or tomorrow... All in a good way. PS: But seriously...WSGT2 for rFactor 2 Master Race NOW!!
So have I, even some of those who disliked your article have posted similar here at various times during rF2 development. I think it's all subjective, if you don't use a feature that rF2 needs work on, then rF2 might be perfect. If that feature is something you value, and it doesn't work how you want, then rF2 is far from perfect. Not really something to be upset about when there's slivers of truth in it, just something for a dev to work to improve.
Because you don't remember what's was rf1 in the beginning?! Because rf2 doesn't have enough contents(cars and tracks) as rf1! Because at least 50% of rf1 use illegal license while you have to pay 80€ to play rf2?!
Software usually is never perfect. The more complex it gets, the more likely some stuff will have some flaws. Like I wrote in post #100, I have to agree to quite a lot things which are in your article Wim, but rFactor 2 is nowhere near a pile of garbage like some people may want it to be (for whatever reason, and your article is quite the opposite). Currently, it's the only sim which caters all my needs. And looking around, for me, personally, there is no other sim out there which will come close to rFactor 2 in a reasonable timeframe. This doesn't mean I will defend rFactor 2 "just because it's the almighty rFactor franchise by ISI". If there would be a sim which excels rFactor 2 in every important area, I couldn't care less about rFactor 2. But this isn't the case, and rFactor 2 is actually quite ready for league use in my eyes, despite some small issues. And once you're driving, you'll acknowledge that the stuff rFactor 2 is actually doing is pretty damn good. From the guys I know personally, noone said that rFactor 2 would be a bad sim or that other titles are simply better. Not a single one of them. And as long as there are no major show stoppers (like the greyed out join button), I can live with small issues which can happen in a WIP software. But is rFactor 2 perfect? Of course not. If it would be, the devs could instantly stop working on new builds. And even if I don't have most of the problems others do, I can still see why they are having some trouble with some things. In the end, it's just down to personal taste and the will to invest some time I think (beside the fact that there's probably the "favourite" content missing for some folks). I will always prefer a more complex software which is a lot more customizable/expandable over one which is simple to use, even if that means I will have to "fiddle around" to get the result I want with the complex one. But if the easier to use, time saving simple software cannot provide me the result I can get with fiddling around with the complex one - you'll get my point. rFactor 2 doesn't target a mass market, but everyone who wants to do and see stuff you can't do in any other sim at the moment - take your time, invest some time, and if you're stuck, ask for help. Found a bug? Report it. It will most probably get fixed pretty soon. The reward will be a very, very good sim with (some not yet perfected) features you will miss in every other title afterwards. Guaranteed.
Most of us know the answer. The product is still early in it's life span. Even with the advancements in computing power and technology rF2 is still trying to simulate much more complexity, for it's time (and overall obviously), than rF1 was for it's time. It's very much in development and young. Also there are more options out there and many people have different ideas of which sim has the best physics, not to mention many people hardly know what constitutes good physics and just want something that "feels" good to them and not too frustrating, and seems similar to what their mother's Honda feels like when going around a corner in some parking lot or street corner faster than your average driver, then after that, well, awesome graphics, videos, and "coolness"/popularity-factor will take care of the rest. Most know the areas that rF2 currently shines in and the areas it needs work. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON AT ALL to write such a negative article that YOU KNOW will clearly damage the product. YOU KNOW you have one of the biggest sites when it comes to sim-racing. YOU KNOW that this article will get viewed, spread around, and posted on other large sites where there are lots of visitors/readers. And YOU SHOULD DARN-WELL KNOW that this is an article that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the product for which it is written, other than trying to tell people how horrible you think that product is. It is also written with a very degrading tone, and in a very "negative with clear intent to spread nagativity about a product" writing style. All the article is is an article stating/listing every negative point that you can think of about a product. The article serves absolutely no purpose besides telling everyone "out there" how terrible of a product you think a certain product is. You basically wrote an article with the intention, AND ONLY THE INTENTION, of telling everyone in the industry how terrible of a product you think something is.
Reading most of the comments here, have been interesting to say the least. It exceeded my expectations.
Since I now have to assume Wix or Wims first language is not English I will apologize for questioning his level of education, it is just the use of the word majority as others pointed out. I will also commend him for coming in the thread to take the flak, explain further, or whatever but, and it's a big butt. You state you would like to see this platform and the little underdog ISI succeed. Why would you post an article with so many fallacies and journalistic type agenda driven negative statements, followed by minute positive concessions. For example the whole second paragraph of your article starts with the mighty have fallen, not next-gen, just reworked because DX9, basically perpetuating that same old tired story only to then say "isn't necessarily a bad thing" which would be a minute positive concession. Insinuating that GSC is more popular online, no it isn't, there's rarely anyone in a public server to race on there, and you get kicked out of servers frequently as you join them. And yes I like GSC, recommend it to anyone, it's worth its money. If you really wanted rF2 to succeed you would support it and the article doesn't come across that way due to the reasons I and others have stated, so I hope that explains some of the flak. You also posed a question. Do you feel you have extra answers? You know you got the expected reaction. How much more popular do you think rF2 would be online if it ran nicely on old hardware and there was a crack out for it?
The $1 dollar for a year promotion apparently is for accounts older than 5 years that have been inactive. $1 is a measly amount for the year but when you consider how many people bite on that and then purchase (license...) $35-60 worth of content you see how great of a stroke it is. $1 is more than they'd have brought in from those people and they didn't incur additional cost, you can imagine the revenue coming in from 1-year enthusiasts.
Hi I cross over some sim blogs and websites. Interesting fact is that i didn't find any interesting and objective article about what all this sim's on market actually simulate and if they do, on what way. New car coming, rain coming, look at graphic, multiplayer this and that. Then you'll see few respond like "OMG", "kewl", "fap". And that's most of it. When i want to buy and play game that simulate something, was that racing, driving or flying, that means that i am interested in what the God damn thing actually simulate. Raindrops on pcars tells me nothing about important parts that racing game are supposed to simulate except that it was bad weather that day. Multiplayer won't make simulation of game better or worse, devs will. So it would be nice that someone write article about what AC simulate and what rF2 simulate and what GSC simulate etc from strictly objective, cold and distant view, just like a love of God. If someone wants to simulate rain and oil on road, i don't care does that look more or less visually convincing as long as the mixture of these two ingredients affects the tires on the same way like they would affect it in real life as much as possible in certain conditions. If you did not understand, i want to read about technical achievements of talented or less talented and lazy developers so that i can decide to whom i will gave my money and to which game i will dedicate my time, instead of already mentioned above irrelevant facts and ideas. Sure, there could be place for them, but not this kind of way and with this sort of approach. Saying that AC will scan nord and bring in ruf, means to me just like those raindrops. And these are the main news. Pretty sad, don't you think. Have a nice day
