I decided to take a break form rF2 for a few weeks. In that time I have been course designing on the new game "The Golf Club" whilst using their inbuilt design tool "The Greg Norman Course Designer". What can I say it is a very powerful and well made tool and the design capabilities are endless. Your imagination is your limit. In my opinion it is very smart business, give them the tools and the dedicated community will work for you. For free. This small community has already created some 5000+ courses in only a few months and the vast majority are out of this world. Very professional. With this tool you can create high quality course on the spot in full auto mode or very quickly using a semi-auto approach by massaging a range of option dials for the result your want or you can take full control if you really have something in mind and want to start with a blank canvass. You can even do both. Semi auto to begin and then put the finer details in yourself. You can shape any terrain to your liking, place objects & texture overlays from a growing object library, control lighting & weather. Some designers have spent over 500+ hours on some tedious courses. As I return to rF2 this really got me thinking. With the lack of ISI man power and limited skilled 3D modellers around why are tools like this not available for our community to build quality tracks. Something very similar would serve us greatly. I like many around here want to help and also be creative. Not every has the time, patience, money or skills to learn hardcore modelling. Using quality tools that are easy like this and that can produce very quality results would be amazing. Maybe something like this would be considered for rF3. If we get there. It sure would create a buzz around the community. A quick demo in semi auto mode with max tree density & high terrain:
This is just a terrain editor basically. Building a track is much more than building terrain. There are already tools which are easy to use, learn, and can grant you nice results. (bobs trackbuilder) Not everyone has the time or skills to do the hardcore modding you want, that's true. But, limiting yourself because your knowledge is limited and the willingness to learn is limited as well will grant you limited results. If you're not willing to put the time in for quality, or learning stuff, don't bother. A good example in the old days was a piece of software was RPGmaker 2000. You basically make your own rpg with it, sprite based, etc. But it was quite limited as I believe it was invented to teach kids an easy way to build a game. All games subsequently were limited and simplistic as a result. It's like current day Unreal, anything other than first and third person or platform is already getting iffy just working with the engine and needing to find your way around certain limits. (UE3 experience) Or, remember this one?: I really feel this is what some people want. No effort, awesome results. Seriously, it simply doesn't work that way. Imagine how much work it costs to build something like this for rFactor2 and future tech, holy crap, you're basically rebuilding software which has been around for over 15 years! And in the end, what does it gain you? Will you be able to build cars in that software? Build grandstands or build and uv map buildings? Also, one other thing. Because something is easy to use, doesn't make it a quality tool all on its own. Microsoft paint is easy to use as well. I'm starting to sound like a broken record but people trying to find ways around doing the work necessary to make a proper track is getting old a bit. Sure not everybody has the knowledge for this sort of stuff, which makes obvious sense. However, what I find staggering is people are simply not accepting all previous explanations about this subject. It's like some people screaming 'rF2 doesn't have canned effects!!!!!!!1111' while you can feel it on every road surface you are driving on.. (road noise, rumble strips?) but when confronted with this fact, not a single response anymore. Just because some people don't get the answer they were hoping for doesn't mean there is no truth in it. Sad part is usually those people think they know better apparently because they aren't limited by knowing what they are talking about. Even in a topic where some rF pro recuiting was going on, people felt the need to act they knew better than the pro's who were recruiting, that's just... don't go there.. Another example, people doing conversions without altering textures and material settings and asking for updated control for the HDR pipeline so they can tweak how the textures look. That's not really the good way around but it doesn't stop people from asking either. This isn't the first time this question has been asked, and I'm afraid it's not going to stop. Also for a while roughly the same people were very happy because AC would beat RF2 in terms of modding tools and it would be much easier to stop. Obviously those people forgot where you would build your source material in to actually put into those modding tools... Yes, you guessed it, same deal, like any other game or sim. By the way, the tools look brilliant for its purpose, I don't think you could wish for more, not to mention for ingame accessibility. Probably kicked a few shins left and right, not intended in a bad way, just stating thoughts and opinions here on why such a solution is a utopia. Wanna take over from here Spaskis? (just kidding!)
Limited resources of community coders, and we have max. If everything ISI uses is already available, what more do you need?
No thanks. You already know my POV. I smiled when I read first post and decided not to enter discussion. I ready know the answer. You know we'll never agree on this. Cheers!
I'm not puzzled really. Shorcuts are part of the new era. There are shortcuts to do everything; pictures, movies, music, painting, programming, write a book...etc. I ask myself where is the fun and....it's really a matter of free time?
I am and was ever on the side that tools like that are heavily needed. Modding for such a complex software like rF2 is, eehm... complex! Not to mention the costs. As a corporation that sells a modding-platform, you should make modding as easy and understandable as possible! ISI lacks in this term. To be correct: No one added yet such a powerful editing tool to a racing game... But: What I always say: Offer the best modding/ editing tools and the best documentation and you will have the most mods! I wonder that ISI stuff don´t see this or feels that it´s enough! It´s not! This seems true although most modders are not able to express theire wishes.
Your first sentence is right; rF2 is a VERY complex platform as for other similar software. Then the paradox; ISI should start making complex things easy. (!) Ok, let me play with that concept; first of all; the video in the OP it's showing something completely useless for a track modeler. It's using a very raw procedural approach to build terrains with pre-existent materials and settings. This means a near to zero range to make things looking properly and unique when you're simulating a real place. Complex thing. Complex task. Furthermore making a piece of software like that one in the video would cost A LOT of money, time and man power. Could be good to make just VERY distant and generic and fantasy hills, that's all. A drop in the ocean... Said that, back to the paradox; What's modding means? Means CREATING a third party content for a game, with a proper access to a big variety of features. What you need to CREATE that content? A Tool? What's Tool means? A modeling/mapping tool, for example, it's a small piece of software making one or few things to help the user to solve and/or close a step or a easy task. Do we use a tool to model tracks? No. We use SEVERAL, HUNDREDS and we don't need just tools; We need to model using point to point, box modeling, primitives modeling, polygon modeling, CAD to 3D mesh modeling etc etc etc. We need to cut, slice, extrude, inset, chamfer, push and pull, weld, collapse etc etc etc. We need to work with shapes, lines, splines, biezers, corners etc... We need to convert splines into cuts to split, map, create and manage every type of mesh... We need boolean operators for primitives and easy shapes modeling We have to work with quads and tris, tasselation, with edges and elements and vertices...etc.. We have to work in a complete 3D environment bouncing between orthos, perspectives, top, bottom, left and right views etc... We need a DX/OGL environment to render in real time into viewports... We need to attach, detach, group, merge, connect, disconnect, remove and clean vertices, polygons, elements etc... We need precision, snap tools working in 3D, with vertices, grid, edges etc... We need Aligning tools as for above We need to smooth the normal appearance per elements We need to assign material per elements We need to map objects, to unwrap UVs with several projection methods We need advanced mapping tools as for modeling We need an advanced set of tools to paint vertex We need materials and shaders and advanced settings for each one We need an offline render engine to bake AO maps, High Poly to Low Poly normal baking, to make a radiosity pass to terrains etc... We need a complete set of mesh management to work with hole caps, FFD modeling, Displacement and Deform, to swap models, to scale, move and map UV channels, optimize, RTIN meshes etc..etc.. We need a complete set of tools for animation, keyframing, bones, sometimes physics etc... We need a set of light tools to prepare omnilights for track We need a VERY efficient plugin management to import, export, exchange, merge, convert files from other platforms, or to other platforms and then the game We need a solid layer design to work with hundreds of different objects We also needs a solid script language to automate basic tasks, as dead vertex cleaners, elements detaching, auto triangulation solvers etc etc... ....etc etc etc So, ARE WE using a TOOL? No. We're using a complete 3D software offering hundreds of tools we need to model a track. We're NOT using a small part of a BIG software. We're using a BIG part of a BIG software. Are we using that mess because we're crazy? We just need it, no matter if it's boring. We need it as for any other job using instruments and tools. The joy it's not fighting with 3ds Max all the time to achieve what we want (when it's not going to crash)...it's to see things growing and looking as much as possible similar to what you had in your mind. The fun it's to experiment new flows to make things even better and better, raising your own bar day after day, sharing your job with your team mates and users and then starting thinking the next challenge you'll want to do better than the previous one. A software it's just something you have to learn to cross the river; if you don't have a proper motivation will never works. And Jeremy Clarkson is wrong; you can't fix or do anything with just an hammer. Now the question is, again; are you asking ISI to produce a tool set to do all this stuff? Can't see a single valid point to ask something similar. Are you asking ISI to make a set of tools to automate all this stuff? It's impossible as you CAN'T automate what you need to CONTROL and tame from the start to the end. You can't escape a task you've to solve. If you have to model and map a complex building you need to learn how to complete that task, without asking something else to do that job for you. A complex task requires complex inputs in the form of a series of manual actions. There are no magic buttons. So, are you asking ISI to produce a software to make basic modeling, basic mapping with the support of tons of procedural automations? Why ISI should invest time and man power (and money) to see bad contents popping up, thanks to his own official "tool"? I could start now talking about 2D, and then adding another infinite list of tools you need to produce a decent texture pack and again; it's stuff you'd need to learn if you want to mod a track from scratch - but if I'd like to paint I'd never ask for someone moving my hands (God bless Wacom....). I'd just learn how to paint and having fun with that. Yes, fun. If you don't feel good when you're doing something (and learning should be part of that feeling), may be the right time to ask yourself if you really want to do what you're doing. And I could continue talking about other software needed to manage GIS terrain files, or CAD files, or other set of tools to work with normal maps etc etc... To close the loop, yes; modeling a track it's a COMPLEX set of tasks and it requires a good amount of skills, knowledge and let's add a bit of talent.... plus lot of time and patience and passion and motivation....but there are NO shortcuts to simulate graphically a real world track. Also take into account some fight with your family... As for new guys starting modeling what I can suggest is to start learning and working on pro software, but just focusing on basic tasks. No matter if it's blender or max, basics are basics. The important thing is, in my opinion, to learn how to do things, without shortcuts, because every time you use a shortcut you miss something important for your own experience. As for me, I started learning the 3D modeling directly in Max (it was and it is the worldwide standard for 3D modeling), and then I moved into other platforms to complete my expectations (no, I'm not a Max lover...). At the time I started this adventure, youtube was a mirage, we had just heavy (and boring) books and infinite lessons. Now there are hundreds of tutorials, a huge community of amazing talents and plenty of free models to be analyzed.... so don't bother with the hammer. PS: I agree if you ask for more information and tutorials, but that's a completely different request and expectation.
Whoa I didn't expect such a reaction. This was not my intention to cause angst amongst the community. If anything the idea was designed to bring people together and keep rF2 modding strong. I know this is an old topic however this is a new tool and I thought I would share with you to see what your thoughts are for the future of modelling. There will always be a need for 3D modellers. Your skills are envied and very much appreciated. Creating some objects and attempting to build a car in blender obviously makes me a beginner and also very ignorant to your current process. The idea is to explore different ways to either partly or fully produce a quality race tracks. Something that is not achievable today. A tool such as this has the ability to do some of the heavy lifting very quickly for the initial modelling phase and then tracks could be polish off in Max/Blender if need be to bring them up to A+ grade. Just because we do something today doesn’t necessarily mean we have to approach this the same way tomorrow. With this type of mentality we would never evolve. I am not looking to replace or create a hack shortcuts to current processes. Simply open up more doors to a wider community. Take this company (HB-Studious) for instance. They thought outside the box and have taken on the might of EA Games & furthermore Tiger Woods PGA which has dominated this genre for the last 15 years. Because of this smart strategy and investment in this one tool alone they will succeed. The community is buzzing and producing some very high quality work which shows of their product in a positive light. And now I am here spreading the word. They have already won. How many complaints are posted around this forum weekly saying that the majority of tracks and conversion are not hitting mark for variety of reasons and several years into the development there simply isnt enough quality content to race on. A year after release we still can’t even get the AI to exit Silverstone correctly without mass pileups and that is supposed to be your gold standard, show off to the world, ISI track. That is another topic and I understand it is not a modelling issue. It is somewhat embarrassing showing this type of content to new users however I still consider this to be a A+ grade track and I understand if you want to produce these types of tracks like Silverstone, Indy, LRP and Mores you need all the 3D modelling skills, tools, time, dedication and passion as mentioned by Tuttle. I understand that Tuttle is protective of his craft. Unlike most it is his career. Like HB Studious has done I really feel it will be a matter of time until a competitor opens up this door. Time will tell. Why not ISI take the lead? ISI have allot more competition than it did with rF1. Maybe an approach like this would help. Allot of people post that rF2 has the best ffb & physics (i agree) whilst it losses out to its competitors in other areas such as gameplay, graphics, quality content & development speed. I fear that it will only be a matter of time until a competitor cracks the ISI ffb & physics level and then ISI and rF3 will have a massive fight on their hands. To me it is kind of like the F1 development cycle. Mercedes chipped away and finally got on top of RBR. No. There will always be reward for effort. It is one of the basic principles in life. I did mention that some good course designers have spent over 500+ hours too produce world class golf courses with very intricate detail. A level and even better than EA would use on TW PGA. I myself (newbie) with no skills have loaded up plugged in and have just spent over a week solid and have only produced 5 holes and I still have more work to polish them off. I consider them to be of B- grade and yeah I am still bashing my head against the wall at 2 am. The beautiful thing about this is I don't have to invest all my energy into understanding the internal workings of the game. This tool does produce quality courses (B+ grade material) very fast and even on the fly. Surely this would be far better than driving on allot of the D+ grade tracks that currently kicking around rF2. Allot of them illegal I might add. I understand if you want a real life Silverstone or Indy grade then you need to put in the countless man hours & that is where the hardcore modellers come in. Modellers would also be needed to build up the object library. They could even make money off there built objects if that was there prerogative. Do we have 1000+ B+ graded tracks in rF2 today? “The Golf Club” was only released as a beta several months ago and they are still developing the “The Greg Norman Designer”. Imagine when this tool is polished and two years into its development cycle like we are today. So many people on there forum have said they only bought the product primarily to build course for the community and that they hardly even invest the same amount of time energy into playing golf. It depends how you look at it. The attached video probably wasn't the best sample. I did mention that this demo was using a very basic semi-auto approach which of course would be no good is you are try to replicate a real life place. However this tool does have the ability to start with a flat blank canvass and you can easily sculpt your terrain with a variety of brushes from a range sizing from a golf ball to Mt Everest. Some modellers have mange to produce some of the most challenging intricate courses in the world. If there object library included vast array of racing textures and objects you would be amazed at what even I could knock up in no time and I suck. No disrespect, using a tool like this would put most of the current content out there to shame. In my mind the concept of designing race track is not vastly different to designing a golf course. Simplifying this so please don’t take any offence; they both start with purchased terrain to either map a race circuit or a golf course on. The circuit rout is very much like laying out a fairway rout whilst taking into consideration your terrain and undulations. Undulations can be placed on your race circuit and your fairways for the desired result. Kerbs & run off areas are very much like placing fairway rough & green-side run off areas. Grandstands, Pits areas, Trees eye candy is no different to Clubhouses, Bunkers, Trees & pins. There are allot of people out there wanting to build tracks for rF2. There are so many reasons as to why we aren’t. Another path might simply help this cause. It did for me and now instead of building tracks on rF2 I am building magic golf courses all around the world. I was an senior oracle programmer & part time photographer. I have the patience and a high level of attention to detail. Whilst I agree there is a growing demand for wanting things yesterday It is not always as clear cut. I don't believe in band aid solutions. You may think this one. I do believe in forward thinking though.. Tuttle If I had your knowledge, I would find an investor, build a tool like this for circuit building, sell it to the sim community. Retire BTW Tuttle now that your here, will ever place an alternate AI path on your "Top Gear TT - Dunsfold Aerodrome" track to ditch the crossover so that there are no head on collisions? I believe this has been raised several times on your thread with no response. I am not looking for a hammer. I am looking to strap on another tool belt to get this darn house built..
It is a discussion forum after all, nothing wrong with that for sure! You are making some assumptions across the bored based on what you think you grasp of modding but seem to ignore the more sensible arguments both Tuttle and I make (albeit from different angles, towards the same points though) because of it? For example: A lot of track or car builders will probably frown at this, what is this claim based on? Not on facts I surely hope? Why going to such a tool, when you have 3dsmax/blender in the first place? Placing a teapot and exporting it to rF2 doesn't make it A+ grade either, there are no magic buttons. People still need to know what it takes to build quality content. This technology has been around for a long time as well, think, Delta Force era. They just put it to good use and it is absolutely fantastic for the genre, there is no denying that. However, there are some basics alone which provide problems as Tuttle outlined already. By the way, it is apparent that almost none of his points came across so far. If you fail to see the differences between building a full on racetrack and the downright simplicity of something as a golf terrain editor, I'm afraid we can jump high and low in explaining all the issues, pitfalls, incompatible ideas, contradictory requests, but I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears until you have a more thorough understanding of what it takes to build a track. Thank you for proving my point. It is even more surprising that you are indeed raising this discussion then, when you are clearly experienced in a related field. Again I can't but help noticing some behavior I hinted at in my first post. Tuttle made a point of going out of his way to almost explain literally explain why there is such a difference, among other things. But almost all of the arguments we make against the case you seem to skip only to explain your own case more. Absolutely not trying to sound belittling, but is that because have no idea what 80% of those arguments were about, or they simply didn't suit the answers you are looking for? No shame into admitting that you don't get something but if that lack of understanding dictates whether you agree or disagree with factual points doesn't come across in a positive manner, again, I can quote myself on this one almost.
I remember reading the idea that if you try and make a program like 3dsmax, but make it as simple as you can while retaining the full functions and ability, you end up with 3dsmax. I'm not a modder, but what I see is, like most games, a platform that has become more complex. That's what we want when it comes to advancing the software. That, combined with people modding for free, in their limited spare time, no wonder we don't see screeds of masterpiece quality content each week. People who could create passable content for previous sims now find that things aren't as straightforward. The other thing is that if you want ISI to create this software, you are going to be setting back actual sim development a monstrous amount. Someone else needs to make this complex but simple software. That in itself is a complete other project, something a whole other team of devs would work on for years. But why, the tool is there, the knowledge is there too, but the time and talent may not be.
I for one see the arguments and problems mentioned by Tuttle for example. It is clear that this would be a big task which is at this time not realistic for ISI. But if you stick to the traditionals and "the only way" for ever, no one should wonder if modding goes down the drain. All I say is that the modding techniques and possibilities for unexperienced people should grow. SOme arguments are not valid though: Why should a track made with a track editor should be lower quality? Depends on editor and what it offers. no? And where is the problem to make it possible to add / import meshes or models to the editor? In which manner are things like Bobs track builder not working or impossible? Why should modding per editor be less fun? One day someone will do the next step. Be it slightly mad, or someone else.
So the concept it to do something rough on that magic tool and then polish/refine on Max? Apart the fact it's a huge waste of time you can do it just now. Just use sketchup to "model" a house and then go fixing the mess this application did into a proper modeling software, like Max. Reinventing the wheel it's not on my goals no....
Such a product is limited for a reason, the end result will be that as well for the same reasons. Also when people resort to such an editor, it possibly says something about their experience, skill or simply available spare time, as well. You're stuck with what has been made or someone is willin Load's of things, maybe everything Tuttle posted in his initial post. Should it? Disagree, if someone has fun using such an editor, by all means. When modding stops being fun, then don't do something you don't want to be doing
I get you guys. Nowhere have I said that Max/Blender should not exist and modellers are not needed. Actually I have said the opposite numerous times. Nowhere have I said that I am trying to recreate Max/Blender. I do understand your arguments and they are all valid. As expressed I am ignorant to the current process. More hopeful that one day in the near future there will be simplified tools to produce B+ grade tracks for the masses as most people won’t spend years of their lives learning the complexities such as Tuttle has. This investment should be for A+++ grade material such as he produces. That way more people can get involved. Not everyone is like you guys. There used to be a time when everyone had their heads in the books and only wrote complex SQL or P/SQL scripts for reporting. The same goes for building web pages. Some could do it and most could not. Then the likes of SAP/ Business Objects came along and provided a different approach with simplified tools. Now anyone can build a report or a web page. Sure it will never be as good as custom hand written script and there will always be the need for a few coders premo touches however for the masses it certainly will open up the doors. Keep doing what you’re doing ISI. A narrow minded approach maybe your undoing. I hope not as I am a big supporter. I don't post like many others regularly do around here saying how ugly most of the tracks are etc.. I was simply showing off a new tool and was wondering about its potential for the future. You guys say no way get my head out of a$$. Fair enough I will take that as you are the experts. I guess it’s back to the blender tutorials for me. Maybe in 2 years I can build my first D+ grade track. Maybe not.. I think we misunderstood each other. Is there a tool for me today with no skills to login and build a b+ grade track relatively hassle free? All that is required is my time and my imagination. Fact, no. I have said numerous times I am not trying to recreate real life tracks to Silverstone A+ quality. That is and always will be for you gurus to do. I did say "Simplifying this so please don’t take any offence;" Please don't cut out words to make me look like an idiot and a disrespectful pig. I can do that for myself. The simplified concept is similar depending which way you look at it. I wasn't even necessarily referring to 3D modelling on that point and believe the comparisons were worthy. Anyway like I said before I am not here to create angst. Not my style.
Building a b grade track as you call it with no knowledge isn't possible indeed. Don't expect it to be so. No offence taken, at all, nor am I trying to make you look like what you think. This was mainly meant to illustrate my point that people asking these questions are not really knowing what they are asking for, your sentence illustrated that. There is nothing more to it than that, for sure. No worries, it's not taken that way here.
That is why I wrote this many times "makes me a beginner and also very ignorant to your current process.", "(newbie) with no skills " & "and I suck. No disrespect," I have already highlighted this fact. I get it.. EDIT ADD: When I wrote the OP it was 2am (course building & having fun) and I was excited to share this prospect. Boy did you guys kill the joy quickly.. So here is where I got to on my XB coupe. Not very far as you can. Just some place holders and allot of time trying to iron out the blueprint issues. With tracks being so large I can only imagine the complexity, headaches and mass amount of work involved to get them done. I wish I could find a good step by step guide to building a good race track. One thing I have wondered can one use blender for rF2? I seem to remember a thread saying no which I think is at the time why I stopped working on this. I couldn't afford Max and don't have contacts to work the physics etc..
