We need documentation

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by chuckyeager, May 14, 2017.

  1. CamiloNino

    CamiloNino Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    131
    I didnt say some people say its bad. The comment I'm responding to and some more imply that it is unnecessary or pointless, because some people can make mods with whats available now and somehow if some people still wont mod then why bother. So yeah, talk about missing my point.

    And also what has been said by me and others is that even if there is documentation and videos or other resources online, with the current state of rf2 and its modding community, that's not proper documentation. And I dont care what other games provide, rf1 and rf2 are made to be moded, so there should be proper support and documentation for it. What other people make with other games that are not designed that way is irrelevant.
     
  2. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    I think you missed my point entirely. Yes, believe it or not, some of the questions I asked on the forum THREE YEARS AGO, I have somewhat got answers to... others I have not. Surprise eh? I wrote down the process that I used to successfully convert tracks (and posted what I thought would be useful pictures) as it seemed the op was having trouble gettings things to work with the tutorial he followed. I explained it in pictures just in case there was a step missed which was giving him errors. Shame on me for wanting for help someone out eh? I should "be a total dick" by helping people more often don't you think?

    I am not saying there is ample documentation, I am saying documentation exists (with new documentation created all the time) and that is why I am using my free time to aggregate things that I have found that I feel others may benefit from. Now you are under the impression that the information aggregated on the websites listed are my own creations. No, they are not. The docs section particularly has many docs collected over time on a wide range of subjects from lots of different people. Some of it may be outdated but I only have a limited hours in the day to go through these things. Some of the documents collected are still relevant today. I am so sorry that the fact of me grouping all this info together somehow annoys you... you should probably chill out a bit eh? The internet used for spreading information that others might find useful... shocker huh?

    @CamiloNino I think you missed my point entirely. Yes... as a teacher I know that proper documentation helps others learn. I also know that not everyone has the answer to every single question imaginable. Students can sometimes tell teachers things they do not know... it happens! :) I am sure there are things that others have found out using the same tools as ISI/S397 that they didn't know were possible. So yes, it would help if there was documentation about every single process for modding rF2, but currently it's what we don't have. Doesn't hurt to ask though.

    I linked the subreddit as there are many people that have contributed to it and still do on a daily basis. Many people don't even know it exists yet.... 875 simracers know it does already.

    The official wiki for rFactor 2 is very lacking... do you really think it should be open to every troll on the internet to contribute? That couldn't possibly go wrong could it?! *facepalm* It would be nice if things from the forum could be added to it ever so often though eh?

    There is no "backlash" from me about wanting more documentation... I welcome it.
     
    chuckyeager likes this.
  3. SPASKIS

    SPASKIS Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    1,426
    I am sure that all the info required for proper modding exists. The fact we have excellent mods just proves it.

    I wish we could all agree is that we need to structure all this knowledge in a proper way to make the learning curve a little bit easier for someone who would like to start modding but maybe doesn't have the skills to find and learn whatever he requires.

    I had quite a discussion with Woode about this item quite a long ago. He has done an impressive effort. However I still think that the format is not the best.

    I proposed if we could agree in common the structure of a white book of modding to be built altogether. I am just an amateur track modder but I would collaborate as I think many would. Once the titles of the chapter of the book are established it would be much easier to fill the gaps.
     
    chuckyeager likes this.
  4. CamiloNino

    CamiloNino Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    131
    @Woodee I didn't miss your point, you are just changing it now, but whatever.

    Funny, because many community maintained wikis ALREADY work like that (*facepalm* indeed), what could possibly go wrong? Not much actually. In a wiki you can have registered users that you can ban, and an edit history that you can revert to in case of vandalism. And the number of contributors that care about maintaining it is much greater than the number of trolls, so any vandalism is quickly fixed. That's how the Ubuntu wiki works, the Kerbal Space Program Wiki works (with 81,054 edits and counting), and, well, Wikipedia itself and many more.
     
  5. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    I made a wiki that is open to community contribution http://rfactor2.wikia.com/wiki/Welcome since 2014.

    How many contributions has it had? NONE.
     
  6. SPASKIS

    SPASKIS Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    1,426
    And why start a new one?
    We should focus on improving the official one. For what I have read in this thread it is not open to external input.

    Is there an explanation why official wiki seems to be private? Does one need to apply somewhere to be able to feed it?
    I thought wiki concept was based on community collaboration to fill, correct and improve.
     
  7. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Because in 2014.... I couldn't find an official one.
     
    SPASKIS likes this.
  8. T1specialist

    T1specialist Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    163
    This is just dishonest statement from you. People are not saying there is no documentation. It is that the documentation and tools are not very good and miss tons of critical stuff. It is of course easier to discredit the opposition's opinion if you flatout disfigure their opinion so badly that it doesn't even represent anyone's opinion anymore.

    I think it is clear to everyone you are not trying to discuss the merits of both sides truthfully. You are here to defend rf2 no matter what. Teacher or whatever you claim to be (I'm a mechanical engineer and that doesn't matter either) it just doesn't add anything positive to the discussion when the statements you even choose to respond to are mispresented beyond any recognition just to make it easy for you to dismiss them.

    Modding does not need to be super easy. The tools and concepts are difficult. They just are difficult and there are many of them. There is a lot of learning. There are tons of difficult concepts to understand and learn both in graphics and physics. There are lots of complex things to understand and learn before one can output something worth releasing out there.Or even travel that road from one end to other. It takes a long time to learn the tools. Not to mention the time it takes to actually build something. But at the same there is no point making this purposefully difficult by denying information and artificially making the end product quality lower just because difficulty is the only metric one understands or appreciates. Just like it makes no sense to attack those people who just want to learn.

    I'm not going to try to change your opinion. I'm sure it is impossible. But as someone who has gone through the modding path in both ac and rf2 (not some one click conversion stuff but actual scratch made stuff) I can tell from first hand experience that rf2 is frustrating experience through and through. Compared to assetto corsa where a total newbie can get a car into the game within hours of first starting in a new 3d program (be that just a cube with one texture material) in rf2 it takes weeks because you need to reverse engineer so many rf2 specific variables, file structures and 3d specific traps... It is a fact. Things that need to be just right or otherwise it won't work. For a newbie rf2 is impossible and not even worth trying. You can read the little info that is out there a million times but it won't help you because so much critical stuff is missing.

    AC lists these variables in their documentation because they understand that this information needs to be available. And they don't explain everything. Enough to get you going. Good quality documentation and tools directly translates to good quality mods. It is the reason why in ac the original scratch made content output is 100 to 1 in quality and quantity compared to rf2. It is because rf2 documentation is not just outdated but misses huge chunks of basic critical need to know information. In ac you can focus on creating content. Ac tells you more about things it doesn't support than rf2 tells you about its features it supports. In rf2 it is endless marathon of problem solving and trial and error. 90% of rf2 modding (unless you do one click conversions) is time spent figuring out what is the magical combination where ever just so something works.

    I'm willing to make a bet you have never even read ac (or any other game's) modding documentation. You have no idea what you are even saying. All you know is rf2 and you think it is amazing. You think it is amazing because it is difficult, frustrating and takes a lot of time. For those same reasons I don't think it is amazing. I think rf2 offers magnificent list of features and a great sim and if it was properly supported by documentation there would be hundreds of wanting modders out there who could do justice to rf2. I'm sure 397 are smart and that day hopefully comes some day. But hopefully it won't be too late.

    Anyways, here is an easy questionnaire of things that are not explained anywhere unless you can find a single post in internet. It is just things I can quickly think of, I'm sure there are more traps out there if I really wanted to post something more conclusive..
    1. how do genstrings work?
    2. what are the required naming conventions for gmts and upgrade names?
    3. explain how uvmaps, vertex colors and pivot orientations need to be set up for fbx export?
    4. what are the required instances in gen file?
    5. what are the supported files and their versions in rf2 (texture formats, fbx version)?
    6. what is the desired tris/materials max count for completed model and lods?
    7. how does suspension animations work? What are the requirements for the gmt and where do you set up the pivots for example?
    8. how to create backfire 3d effect/collision model?
    9. what files define the way how the car or track appears in-game menu?
    10. how do you setup a wildcard material
    11. how is text aligment set up for lcd text? What file formats lcd text supports?
    12. (3d settings) for car mirror
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
    peterchen, Nibiru, demerzel and 2 others like this.
  9. CamiloNino

    CamiloNino Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    131
    I think it is great that you went ahead and took the time to put together a wiki, and it has great stuff in it, but you cant honestly compare it to an official one. I searched in the forums for your wiki and I see you mentioned a few times in some comments a few years ago (ironically where people where also asking for better documentation, some of the same ones in this very thread), but that's it, it doesn't even has its own post, something that could be a sticky in the modding forum for example, nothing. How do expect people to find out about it? Are you even surprised nobody contributed to it? You cant just create a wiki in a random website and expect people to just find it. Again, you cant compare it to an official one. Here is how Kerbal Space Program promotes their wiki:

    https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/en/?page_id=13

    Notice its only two clicks away from their home page and featured in big colorful buttons in their community section alongside the forum. And how when you go there you can register an account and start contributing. Compare that to the rfactor wiki.
     
  10. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    You misunderstand me, clearly.... I am not blind... I see there are gaps that people want filled with appropriate docs. Maybe this will change with S397, maybe it won't. I did exaggerate with "there is no documentation" part... but the way some people moan on it sounds as if they think it is that way. I have no interest in car modding, so maybe that is where the gaps are and I have no real intention to mod for AC (the sportscar sim) at all, just not enough depth to encourage me to do things with it. But just because it takes less time to get a visual response does not mean that you get a right and authentic result. Maybe there are AC vehicles people have made which are near spot on but I'm not interested. I am not attacking people that want to learn.

    Does any of this car documentation answer at least some of your queries?

    Creating complex physics has increased in difficulty there is no doubt and yes there does seem to be some level of understanding 3D and physics before modding even begins to make a good job of an end product. That's just the way things are, tyre simulation explanations just blow my mind in how complex they are. To others they probably know what it all means.
     
  11. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,058

    There is no real comparison to the official one, no I didn't really have the energy to promote it....my bad. Maybe it could have taken off if I did... the message just didn't seem to catch on, but it was there at least.
     
  12. CamiloNino

    CamiloNino Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    131
    No idea, it would be nice to know if S397 has any plans for it. By the looks of it it seems like it is still hosted by ISI, it has the old logo and everything and the last change was more than a year ago.
    If you try to edit the page source you get this: http://wiki.rfactor.net/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=edit

    "Sure, it would be nice and this would grow faster if we had a dedicated and knowledgeable writing staff ... but we don't. So if you have any guides or info you wish to volunteer, or feel it belongs here, feel free to contact us :) ."

    So it seems like if you want to contribute to it you have to contact someone so they put it there, no idea if that someone is even answering requests anymore.
     
  13. T1specialist

    T1specialist Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    163
    I'm not asking you to make a mod for assetto. All I ask is that you read the assetto guide to see for yourself what kind of guide is being asked here. What kind of information is being asked. I ask you to read because you make it sound like people are asking full tutorials when that is not the case at all. If you have ac the pdf guide is located here: \SteamApps\common\assettocorsa\sdk\dev\car-pipeline-1.03\AssettoCorsa_car_pipeline_1.03.pdf

    Just read it and see what kind of document is enough for official documentation as far as graphics goes. Obviously the goal is not to make rf2 into ac. But if we talk about documentation then that is good example of how to do it. When I read that document for the first it gave me the idea that I can do it. It is an encouraging document. When you read it I'm sure you could put a car into ac after reading that. Nobody can do the same thing with rf2 documentation. Nobody, never.

    I think it is great rf2 community has people like you who are willing to gather what little there is and combine it into a resource. Sadly a lot of that stuff is for rf1 and no. I don't think there are any answers to my questions. My questions are more like an example list of critical things that people expect to find in guide documents. Things that professional 3d people know to ask for and things newbies have no idea that even exist. All that is crucial for car modding and all of it is missing.

    But as physics and graphics get more complex the documentation should also get more detailed. Modding something like a gpl or rf1 is a lot easier than it is to mod rf2. With rf2 there are so many more variables to deal with that reverse engineering doesn't work anymore. Trialing and erroring hundreds of variables to get the right combination is outdated thinking. Not to mention how insane amount of time it takes. Not to mention that it is worthless and unnecessary job. Those values are the same for everybody as they are the basic requirements for rf2 and as such should be listed and given in official modding documents.

    Reverse engineering worked with gpl and sportscar gt because those games had a lot less things to trial and error. A lot less. And those games were not intended to be modded. Rf2 sole purpose in life is to be moddable to put it bluntly. And by far it is also the most complex and detailed sim out there. I think it is clear as day that the most complex and detailed sim out there needs better documentation than what gpl has.
     
    Raintyre, peterchen, demerzel and 4 others like this.
  14. SPASKIS

    SPASKIS Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    1,426
    I 100% agree on what you say. The amount of time required to do things is considerably higher when you don't have a proper follow up guide.

    It took me literally weeks of effort trying to figure out how to convert a track from rF1 to rF2. When I was about to abandon I directly asked for help to Dave Noonan (the author of 3d simed). He pointed me at the key thread where someone explained how to get a track to get mode. It even included a script to create the folder structure with the required minimum objects to make a track work.

    At that that time there were REALLY FEW rf1 converted tracks. Very few knew how to properly create tracks. At that time we had already converted several of our tracks, which although being quite low quality at that time were very present in the matchmaker.

    Miraculously everything changed when in November 2012 I published my tutorial about converting tracks from rF1 to rF2 using 3dsimed. I did mainly did this in order to compensate Dave for his help and interest in his customer. I hope and believe it had the desired impact in the program sales.

    From that point on track conversions started to pop up everywhere. Some of those people have created very nice tracks because they are good artists but not so good reverse engineers.

    The point of this is that after having a tutorial a newcomer can do the job that took me several weeks, in a couple of days maximum. It always depends on the ability of the person.

    I just helped @SmashingPants67 with a problem using my tutorial. Could you please tell us how much time it took you to where you got?
     
    demerzel likes this.
  15. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Ah ok I get you.

    The car docs I found were official I think but I don't have the knowledge nor the patience to know if they solve all unanswered questions.

    This is a message to everyone... are there questions about making tracks that you still don't know the answers to? Are there sections to my website which you think would be helpful to others making tracks? https://sites.google.com/site/trackmoddingresearch/contact . There are certainly many people out there with knowledge we can tap into for all this data. Tracks have been made well so it proves it can be done.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2017
  16. demerzel

    demerzel Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    127
    No, you don't.
    And this is the clue that you still don't get it.

    Here is a question from @T1specialist : "What are the required naming conventions for gmts and upgrade names?"

    It's basic logic to open the doc and search for it. This is not some high-level concept engineering stuff. This is basically how to name the gmt files. Like Racesurface_ prefix for the roads.

    Even if you just open the files and use ctrl+f to look for all mentions of gmt in the docs should get you an answer within 2 min. And I'm pretty sure that T1specialist asked this specific question because it's basic and he knows for sure that it's not covered in any docs.

    And this should automatically answer your question that these documents don't solve all unanswered questions because that's why this topic exist in the first place.
     
    T1specialist likes this.
  17. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    "Ah ok I get you"... meaning I understood what @T1specialist was talking about when he clarified. Whether I understood what he says is up to me, not you! Jeez! :D

    Well I am glad you were able to find that the docs didn't answer the questions. Car modding is not my interest.

    Are there still questions about car modding after reading through this doc? https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8ZQYBxJXy8vNWlET01McUtCRVk (All car docs I have found so far)

    Maybe someone should make a list and @Marcel Offermans or @Christopher Elliott could ask the car guys, I have forgotten who they are on here.
     
  18. demerzel

    demerzel Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    127
    Unbelievable.

    So basically, what you did is linked me the Car Modding Complete Tutorial v1.0 from 2012 and then hides behind the "Car modding is not my interest" thing. And then boasting "Are there still questions about car modding after reading through this doc?"

    Yes, I have read through the whole document. You might think that you now showed everyone how wrong we are. But actually, you showed that you are linking various guides mindlessly to everyone to prove how right you are.

    Fair enough most of the questions are answered. So I guess It would have been better to use the first "how do genstrings work?" question as an example. Since there is no mention of this in the linked guide.

    "An Instance is a paragraph describing what mesh (gmt format from Max gMotor exporter) is loaded, what rendering parameters apply and the distance view."

    Hmm yeah, the max gMotor exporter only works for 3ds max 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 if I know correctly and none of them are working on windows 10. So I guess as a newbie you are already fucked on page 2. Because the preferred way is to export to FBX and use Gjed.

    "This tutorial is using the workspace from the workflow tutorial, don't forget to
    check this out."

    Let's check the workspace tutorial:
    First few line.
    Mandatory installation - coreshaders.mas These shaders from rFactor2 (ModDev/Shared) have to be placed in the 3DSMax/hardwareshaders folder. - gMotor tools > Converter.dlu >Material.dlu >Texture.dlu These files have to be placed in the 3DSMax/plugins folder

    Yes, this is what you cannot do any more on windows. Unless you are using windows 7 which I'm not and you have a licensed 3ds max 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Which I don't have. And even if I would want to buy one I probably can't.

    Page 3. Detailed process how to assign materials in 3ds max. Which you can't follow unless you have windows 7 and a licensed 3ds max.
    The same page also mentions "cube map= CAR_CUBE_DX9.dds" Which I'm pretty sure it's outdated.

    Page 4. Ops exporting into gmt which you can't do.
    And so on. So basically, since I don't have windows 7 anymore with the correct 3ds max I can't follow this tutorial. And I assume I'm not the only one. And on the other hand, as I mentioned the preferred way is to export to fbx and use gjed as far as I know. But this guide doesn't cover this.

    So if I want to start modding do I need to buy windows 7 with 3ds max? Where can I buy the 3ds max which can work with the official plugins? Where can I still buy windows 7? Should I just pirate it?

    Unless I missed something this guide only covered the gen file. So no sound tutorial for example. Despite it's called complete guide.
    Also, it refers the rF2_car_modding_tires.pdf for a deeper explanation on tire material. I'm wondering how up to date that file is when the contact patch model is from 2015 and the document is from 2012.

    This was a great tutorial in 2012. But we are in 2017.

    So dear @Woodee please explain the contact patch model for me based on the tutorial you linked to me.
     
    Guimengo likes this.
  19. demerzel

    demerzel Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    127
    And now I'm actually taking the time to look through your car collection since you are trying so hard:
    The best guide in your collection is this: Race 07 to rFactor 2. I saved the whole guide on pastebin : https://pastebin.com/W4JurSF4
    I guess the assetto corsa car pipeline 1.03 is pretty damn useful in rfactor 2 modding especially when we are talking about those who just starting out. You know they want to start modding cars in rfactor 2 but they are learning how to do it in assetto corsa. '-.-

    3 car modeling tutorial for 3ds max. Nothing to do with rfactor 2 modding in the sense of how the game is working. But if you are modeling it's helpful I suppose unless the modern 3ds max is is too different since the guide is almost 10 years old.

    rF1 to rF2 car conversion: A guide for 3dsimed. Let's not forget about how it was pointed out that converting stuff from rf1 into rf2 is not modding in a proper sense! By those who defend the documentations.

    rF2 - Introduction to Physics Tool (pTool) and flexible chassis pdf. I guide from 2014. I guess it's still relevant even tho you don't need to install the sdk anymore.

    TGM Tyre tool quick start v3 from 2013 first line: Updated 25th July 2013 (Relevant to build 240). Is it still relevant? How should I know? We are now at build 1088 or whatever.

    ISI named materials from 2011. Who knows if it's still relevant or not.

    A simpit car modding tutorial from 2009. The whole tutorial covered with 3dsmax and zmodeler in mind.

    Something about damage from 2012.

    rfactor internal plugins from 2006. I guess this is also good for rfactor 2.

    WC instance names forum post from 2008.

    And as a last dick punch to you: None of your car modding guide is about the contact patch model. So you will never be able to explain it to me based on your collection of tutorials.

    I suppose somewhere in the deep and wide internet you will be able to find a forum post with bits and pieces about the contact patch model.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2017
    Guimengo likes this.
  20. Woodee

    Woodee Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,004
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    @demerzel

    Firstly... when did I say that I was apparently a modder with a wealth of knowledge? That's right... nowhere. I have merely COMPILED these docs that I have got from several places. Because some of them made my ISI I would have thought they worked but didn't know they were now obsolete for the current workflow.

    I'm not trying to "hides behind the 'Car modding is not my interest' thing", that is just a fact. I have no interest in car modding so I don't read up on it. Does that bother you that I have no interest in it? Clearly it seems to... there is no "boasting"... you are reading between lines that are not there. I merely asked a QUESTION... shocker huh? A QUESTION to those that DO know what they are talking about with car modding to post up what is missing and then tell the only people that could fix it, the S397 devs. I am not the person to ask about the contact patch model because again it is not my interest and I have no intention of learning stuff which I have no interest in. There are plenty of other people that know more and the Brabham docs go into much more detail on car modding than I would ever do. Did you not see those posts?

    Some of the docs that just docs/google docs are checklists that I made myself while I tried things out and left them in my Google Drive as someone may have found them useful. The majority of docs were not made by me. I have separated some of the docs into sections so they can make more sense.

    Perhaps you should stop shooting the messenger and try and do something constructive that will fix the documentation problems instead of trying to dissect information that I collected so far.
     

Share This Page