Announcement | Motorsport Games Enters Into Agreement to Acquire rFactor 2 and Developer Studio 397

Discussion in 'News & Notifications' started by Paul Jeffrey, Mar 3, 2021.

  1. lagg

    lagg Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    1,434
    This could happen in short term, bul in long term this would change.
    If the target of rF2 is "to feed" simcade products, the development of the simulation doesn't make sense and in long term rF2 will stop being a simulator.

    This is not what i think that is going to happen, i'm only following your reasoning.
     
  2. AMillward

    AMillward Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2017
    Messages:
    1,778
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    That would take an entire rewrite of the code. And it’s spaghetti as it is.
     
  3. Stefan_L_01

    Stefan_L_01 Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    358
    Why should you?

    Would S397 have been sold when the project so far had been a cash cow?
     
  4. Mitch9

    Mitch9 Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2020
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    92
    It´s a pretty dumbed down reasoning of course, but what I mean is that if rf2 keeps its place in the sim market (as the hardcorest sim or whatever), not directly competing with another MG game and is obviously not a money sinkhole, it could be kept around even as the lowest selling product.
    (Could still be many incentives to buy rf2 and dlc of course, like exclusive FE content, pro series etc....)
     
    lagg likes this.
  5. Enoneado

    Enoneado Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    12
    this is what studio397 needed since years ago, the excessively slow development of the game is a heavy ballast for the title, and i think that the graphic engine used is another ballast too, but change the current core of the game for Unreal or other is quite complicated...
     
  6. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    3,093
    Thus I hope it is surely not happening. Also rF2 graphics are very hopeful, and it is being proven.

    What is meant is that new titles are meant to use ue.
     
  7. Rui Santos

    Rui Santos Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    872
    In short... another pCars

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Will Mazeo

    Will Mazeo Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    1,584
    Graphic engine is fine and PBR looks better (needs better particles and fix car reflection at night tho) than UE4. Real issue IMO was trying to update the game keeping previous content compatible and also allocating staff for other projects, these are to blame for the slow progress.
    It'll be a shame if they drop current graphics for UE4. Don't know about VR, but on screen I prefer rF2, it makes me remember Gran Turismo Sport in replay mode which, to me, has the best graphics for racing games (but there everything is static). As I said rF2 only need to improve particles and car reflections at night and apply the changes to cockpit of older cars.
    But UE4 is console ready so...
     
  9. burgesjl

    burgesjl Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    371
    The development of pCARS is an interesting case study in the development of technology alongside target market and selling expectations. Stephen Hood would be well served in really studying it, in order to not make the same mistakes they did.

    I was part of the original pCARS dev backers: was actually fascinating to see them build the sim from basic driving car around the track, with how they developed the graphical side of the sim over time and also the physics/vehicle dynamics as well. They replaced the tire model half-way through development, and also did a couple of huge changes to the graphics engine as well which completely changed the character of the game. They also completely replaced the UI as one of the final steps )and in my opinion, took it backwards). Their problems were not really in how good a simulator it was, since it proved at least as good as rF1 (without the modding), but in how it was hyped and positioned to consumers. It was sold to "hardcore simracers" as being better than anything else out there in that realm, but also the best cross-platform simcade racer for consoles.

    When you looked at the console market at the time, it was platform-specific games for Gran Turismo and Forza. Neither one of them are especially good simulators (driving), but more a 'car collectors' game with some whacky driving, and the vast majority of people used gamepads. F1 also evolved from being Playstation-only title to now cross-platform, and the devs at pCARS saw an opening to take some of the PC better driving experience and bring that to consoles. To some degree that was successful. But, they tried to sell it as a better hardcore sim; they failed at that with PC1, tried again and failed even more spectacularly with PC2. Having joined with Codemasters now, they refashioned PC3 away from the more hardcore sim into even more of a middle ground, almost a recreation of Need for Speed (which the pCARS devs had actually done prior). But I'd say this has likely been an even bigger failure as a good hardcore racing game than even PC2 was; but it may have seen more success on consoles.

    It's been instructive to watch how Reiza have taken the core Seita tire model and tried to optimize it - which is basically how they built Game Stock Car and AMS to begin with. There were some cars in PC2 that were somewhat believable in some cases, but generally they tried to create too many car types/classes and only really worked the vehicle dynamics properly across a few (and that was hard given it was supposed to also have an all-season driving model, ice as well as rain). Reiza have applied more time to the dynamics, but have committed the same mistake of having too many car types/classes. Much better to have a game, like the F1 game, where you can focus in on one specific car type and really work hard on that. They allegedly spent a lot of time on PC3 optimizing its use with gamepads; no idea if that was successful or not. But Stephen Hood really needs to admit to one thing; Codemasters utterly failed to get their F1 games working properly on PC with FFB wheels. It was, simply, terrible. Words cannot describe how shit it was/is; in ten years, they never got it even reasonable.

    When I drive PC2 or ACC, they exhibit the same issues; bad FFB especially at the point of loss of grip, and over-exaggerated forces and what feels suspiciously like canned responses. Only two games don't exhibit these problems; iRacing and rF2. The iRacing tire model has its problems, and the rF2 one lacks the proper modelling of track temperatures; neither properly model damage and failures which results in being able to run minimum pressures/max cambers without penalty. I suspect that at its fundamental level the Seita tire model has the capability to be a good one, but they've failed to build consistent tires with it. The core rF2 model (and I suspect the iRacing one) seems to be too complex for people to use and understand to build tires (which is why Reiza choose the pCARS code) that perform as expected/desired. This tire capability probably doesn't matter on consoles, because the feedback to players is almost exclusively graphical/visual. But its crucial to a proper sim.

    I actually felt that finally, PC3 was being honest about what their chosen market was, and thus having a dumbed-down tire model from its predecessor was a good move. But it did mean they had to finally admit abandoning us hardcore sim racers (though the marketing hype guys still made some initial efforts, eventually they rolled over). That Stephen Hood has done this from the beginning for the BTCC game is probably smart. It'll have a decent size market on both PC and console, especially since there hasn't been such a game available for a long time. It should sell like hot cakes. I'm nowhere near convinced about doing the same with a LeMans-only game, and it certainly won't work with a karting game. Kunos was also smart to drop their original aim with AC and focus on GT3 for ACC; and the good news for us simmers is, there's no-one going to get a monopoly on GT3 type racing since those cars appear in all sorts of different championships.
     
    Gonzo, Rui Santos, RaceNut and 2 others like this.
  10. dazzer

    dazzer Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2018
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    1,474
    I am only interested that they do not remove the compatibility of mods ... which engine they use is up to them, but currently they are the only game that accepts mods and is still in constant development.
     
    Rui Santos, Mitch9 and Mauro like this.
  11. mantasisg

    mantasisg Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,250
    Likes Received:
    3,093
    I assume removing anything or doing a collosal switch of anything is not an option.

    What I find iteresting to think about, is how much longer will rF2 development last, and how much will be done in that time. The later one is more important IMO. Quality is also something to wish for IMO for anyone who isn't all about only patting on the back.
     
    RaceNut likes this.
  12. elbo

    elbo Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    171
    RF1 was I think one of the most modded simracer out there...but this only happened after ISI stopped development. This in turn provided modders with a stable platform to mod on so maybe if development were to stop on RF2 it might be a good thing at least as far as modding is concerned.
     
  13. Rui Santos

    Rui Santos Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    872
    For this to happen with rF2 several things need to be fixed/implemented to make it a stable platform for the present and the future, so we have some years ahead before it becomes a "finished" product...
     
  14. elbo

    elbo Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    603
    Likes Received:
    171
    I think one could make the argument that RF1 was not a finished product when development was stopped...but I understand your point.
     
  15. Rui Santos

    Rui Santos Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    872
    i understand, but one thing is to be close to be finished, other is far from that... and rF2 with all its potential is far from being a "complete" finished product...
     
  16. Enoneado

    Enoneado Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    12
    I think that the real ballast of the development is the core itself...
     
    Rui Santos likes this.
  17. AlexHeuskat

    AlexHeuskat Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2020
    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    299
    they seem to massively push E-content....happy ?
     
  18. Germano Cervini

    Germano Cervini Registered

    Joined:
    May 22, 2020
    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    28
    explain yourself better, so bad news?
     

Share This Page