Copy/paste conversions infecting other sims

In general I think that this WIP 0.xxx releases are more or less pointless.
What is it good for?????
Most errors and bugs can be seen by the modders anyways, if they take a
few time to test it.

I for one wouldn´t release a track when I think it´s anyway not finished!?
And this AC Nords is the worst example of this behaviour.

 

> or = to v.90 means it's basically a release candidate or with almost all features completed. It can go into final testing phases where a larger pool of good testers (keen eyes or feel) is welcome especially given a large range of PC specs.

 

We ran the BES mod in v0.9 for a lot of races before we were satisfied and released it as a v1.0 and there are still more tweaks PetraGTC wants to do. 0.9 seems like a good spot to start at for public widespread testing although more and more modders and groups and companies are releasing games and mods in early stages to give people a taste if they want to get in on it early.

 

I took the time to get hold of the latest versions of the Laguna Seca (V2.0 at time of writing) and Nords (V0.7, I think) and I am baffled.

I understand that these things are free and take time, I absolutely respect and support the modding community. What I honestly have zero understanding for is driving a mod, be it converted or otherwise and then complimenting it like it is the best thing since sliced bread? The Nords conversion is tremendously bumpy and miles away from the one we have here on rF2. The Laguna Seca mod I feel pretty much the same about.

On the Racedepartment forums the chap who (I think) is modding the Nords conversion said there was little point in smoothing it out because of the laser version coming later. That confuses me. If I was converting a circuit, I would work on it and take pride in my work if my name was on it.

I'm not bashing AC, I'm not even bashing conversions really..... just the chatter on the forums confuses me.

 

rF2 version of Laguna Seca is also way bumpy, at least the one I tried some time ago. Norschleife took months and lots of efforts to achieve the actual results. To be fair, you should compare the AC versions with the earlier versions of those tracks in rF2, and in that state AC versions look a lot better. Lighting and colour palette seems much more natural in AC, and the textures don't need to be tweaked as much as in rF2 to work properly with HDR.

 

maybe it was the type of car I drove it on here or, that I was expecting too much of the conversions because of all of the love over on the AC forums. It's just a bumpy alright looking nords to me lol

As for colours, My AC is always really dark. Not sure why, it's like my virtual self is always wearing sunglasses, regardless of time of day. Pretty much everything maxed out in the settings.

 

Is there an actual proper Laguna Seca available though? I didn't think there was any outside of iRacing/Gran Turismo/Forza.

 

Not that I am aware mate. I just think it's odd to release something then tell them you will never make it "right". Makes no sense.

 

The biggest thing I hate in sim racing are these "conversions." There are very very very few that are done to any sort of level of competence. They're almost exclusively poorly done. Ugly, bumpy and generally unpleasant to drive. That goes for cars and tracks.

 

Figured as much, with source material already not up to par there's little hope for anything.

 

Well told ya my idea for years.

A modders co-op with respected people on board could say whats mod legal and not and check permissions.

Those add-ons would have a co-op seal of approval.

That would give everyone a line in the sand they could comprehend at least.


Rather then some people here how they do go on ripped mods like they legit ???


I don't go with this it is okay to talk about rips here like Guys says it is as long as you don't put up a LINK



that is akin to giving someone a gun and saying never put bullets in it.................. ?

lopl

This is my forum too and I dont like anyone talking about rips here.

What are you trying to prove?

Go away to your site and do it.

 

Uhm... confusing as always.

But is there a rule against talking about "illegal" mods on the rF2 forums?

 

I have a couple versions of Laguna and none of them are any good, unfortunately. I think most out there now (the conversions that are in older sims) are based off the same couple versions from very early games. Both versions I have are meh quality. Some conversions are great quality though and are great additions to rF2. Floripa, Jerez, Jarama and Daytona RC are some that come to mind that I enjoy.

Rips are great when done well. Best part? I know that I won't see a lot of self righteous jerks on those tracks, so we sim racers get it to ourselves

 

There's no even the official toolkit for Assetto Corsa yet. What they're doing is to use a bugged Blender tool which only includes some flat T1 shaders . This quite explains the ugly visuals of currently released tracks even more if you compare them to the official tracks. Let alone that abomination that guy called as "Nurburgring" with no even transparency on trees.

The lack of patient of that community at wait for official plugins and tools for modelling is producing a sort of negative marketing of Assetto Corsa due those horrible tracks. Bob's Track Builder textures in that Eastern Creek track don't help too, despite the perfect topography (laser scanned).

If you read AC modders sub-forum you'll see most of them are curious people who don't know anything about materials, shaders, textures and material physical properties. There's no point to give some relevance for the new AC community tracks as yet.

But it's inevitable, when the official tools be available and more experienced modders put their hands on, almost all rF1 / rF2 tracks will be converted soon or later to Assetto Corsa, in a such same way every GTR2, GRID and Codemasters track were converter to Rfactor.

That's the life.