Future plans for rF2?

pilAUTO said:
let's focus on what the former boss of s397, namely Marcel Offermans, says objectively and in a very pragmatic and technical manner

That will take us well into 2025 and by that time it's probably too late to restart development on rF2.

Fast forward to 2025 and you have a codebase that has drifted away from rF2 for well over two years.

At that point even "cherry picking" bugfixes, let alone back-porting major features is going to be a challenging task and you can be sure that some of the more interesting changes can't easily be brought into rF2 anyway because it would again break compatibility.

Assuming LMU does well enough to support the current team, which is basically back to the original size of Studio 397 before the acquisition, would you then bet on the fact that resuming with rF2 is the best way to build a sustainable company, when early 2023 you clearly decided it was better to stop working on rF2 and focus on LMU? To me that just does not sound logical.
Click to expand...

Being a software developer with 20+ years of experience from a pure technical and logical point of view I completely agree with what Marcel said here (as quoted by @pilAUTO).

The way I see it is that Studio-397 bought rF2 and treated it as a product. A direct way to develop features, content and to make money out of it. And this lasted for several years. When they were bought by MSG rF2 became a testbed for new sims (not a direct way to make money anymore in the long run). We know how several of those ended up but all changed with LMU. This one actually got released and to a positive reception. LMU is in EA but it will be another year at least (I presume much longer actually) where it needs full time development. At this point the codebase will have drifted from rF2 by more than two years (as Marcel noticed). The amount of code and changes under the hood is impossible to be imagined by someone without experience in software development. It's simply enormous.

At this point rF2 engine (not even the game itself, but its engine) is no longer a product for MSG. It's an asset. A way to implement new things, new endeavors, new products. It makes no sense to go back to its development when you have an asset that allows you to make new games relatively easily.

Now, several people in this thread claimed that rF2 needs to be developed further for MSG to be able to release new games on its engine. Again, from a technical point of view that can't be further from the truth. Actually it's exactly the opposite. It makes no sense to develop rF2 further for this purpose when LMU exists. LMU and its codebase will be a base for further games as this engine will already be 2-3 years ahead of rF2 when/if they decide to make a new game.

To all of you that might say that LMU only supports WEC cars and a new sim might be completely different: the engine itself is so generic that it doesn't really matter. You can't "remove" parts of the physics not related to WEC cars. It doesn't work that way. Also breaking rF2 compatibility doesn't mean that e.g. 60s formulas car can't be run on LMU engine. They can.

From a non technical point of view I presume that when LMU will be in a mature state MSG might either keep releasing new content for it and/or at some point diversify with a new sim. They can try to (re)acquire some license for e.g. BTCC, Indycar, NASCAR, whatever (you name it) and make another focused sim as this proved viable with LMU already. And rF2 will not be a base for that new sim. LMU will.

rF3 might be possible at that point but seeing that software development takes more time each year (as it's more complex) I presume it's much more logical and economically viable to go the route of "focused sims". Especially seeing how MSG was so keen on acquiring those licenses already.
 
Last edited:
Yawn, rehashing old news no one has to move on from rF2 ?
Let the passionate people have their view no good pouring cold water time after time after time.
You just like people come into rF2 threads bagging it.
We will have mods for another decade ! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

If Gjon announced he was developing a new inhouse engine I would greenlight it in a second ! He is the real genius here.
I mean I would do that just for the slightest hope of a more advanced engine,
You want more ISIMotor2.5 ( that is what it still is with all it's bugs )
You can say it is not ISI anymore if you like but at it's core always will be along with it's flaws and bugs.

The fact you sitting here decades later talking about old engine attests to that. :rolleyes:
 
Havner said:
Being a software developer with 20+ years of experience from a pure technical and logical point of view I completely agree with what Marcel said here (as quoted by @pilAUTO).

The way I see it is that Studio-397 bought rF2 and treated it as a product. A direct way to develop features, content and to make money out of it. And this lasted for several years. When they were bought by MSG rF2 became a testbed for new sims (not a direct way to make money anymore in the long run). We know how several of those ended up but all changed with LMU. This one actually got released and to a positive reception. LMU is in EA but it will be another year at least (I presume much longer actually) where it needs full time development. At this point the codebase will have drifted from rF2 by more than two years (as Marcel noticed). The amount of code and changes under the hood is impossible to be imagined by someone without experience in software development. It's simply enormous.

At this point rF2 engine (not even the game itself, but its engine) is no longer a product for MSG. It's an asset. A way to implement new things, new endeavors, new products. It makes no sense to go back to its development when you have an asset that allows you to make new games relatively easily.

Now, several people in this thread claimed that rF2 needs to be developed further for MSG to be able to release new games on its engine. Again, from a technical point of view that can't be further from the truth. Actually it's exactly the opposite. It makes no sense to develop rF2 further for this purpose when LMU exists. LMU and its codebase will be a base for further games as this engine will already be 2-3 years ahead of rF2 when/if they decide to make a new game.

To all of you that might say that LMU only supports WEC cars and a new sim might be completely different: the engine itself is so generic that it doesn't really matter. You can't "remove" parts of the physics not related to WEC cars. It doesn't work that way. Also breaking rF2 compatibility doesn't mean that e.g. 60s formulas car can't be run on LMU engine. They can.

From a non technical point of view I presume that when LMU will be in a mature state MSG might either keep releasing new content for it and/or at some point diversify with a new sim. They can try to (re)acquire some license for e.g. BTCC, Indycar, NASCAR, whatever (you name it) and make another focused sim as this proved viable with LMU already. And rF2 will not be a base for that new sim. LMU will.

rF3 might be possible at that point but seeing that software development takes more time each year (as it's more complex) I presume it's much more logical and economically viable to go the route of "focused sims". Especially seeing how MSG was so keen on acquiring those licenses already.
Click to expand...

For those who wanted rFactor 2 to continue to improve and evolve and have new content for the next few years, so we have established that it is extremely likely that this will not be the case.

I am one of those people, for whom LMU in particular is not suitable for various reasons.

As it stands, the only thing we can do is continue to use rfactor 2 in the most appropriate way, knowing that we know it very well so we are able to exploit it as best as possible depending on what we need.

Finally what we can really hope for is the not too late appearance of an rfactor 3, taking the main principles of rfactor 2 and improving it, as @Havner explained, perhaps taking more from LMU base given that it will be the most advanced simulation in terms of code.

So, let's continue to use rfactor 2 for those who are not satisfied with LMU for this or that reason, and hope for a not too late rfactor 3 using the principles of rfactor 2, but perhaps using more recent code that is to say that of LMU.

I think that’s all there is to do at this point.
 
That project still has a long way to go @Mauro but I'm determined to continue working on it (as software is probably never "finished") but this forum and certainly this topic is probably not the right place to elaborate. I will post regular (quarterly) updates on my website and RD if you're interested in following the progress. And as for "mod support" @memoNo1 (keeping this slighly on-topic) I think it is crucial that, going forward, modding makes the next step. What I mean by that?

First of all, modders need to start respecting the IP of others. This means that if you model an existing car or track, you properly license it, and that you do not "borrow" assets from other simulations. This is crucial to allow any new platform to not just allow modding, but to also leverage it (in online competitions, etc).

Secondly, an optional but in my opinion important step, modders need to start sharing more, preferably open sourcing their work. Creating cars, and certainly creating tracks, is a huge job. Even if you work on them full-time, you'll spend many months. This development time is increasing rather than decreasing as the technical capabilities of our computers keep increasing. The best way to counter that is to start collaborating and the best model for that is open source. Work on projects on websites like GitHub, leverage each others' work, create assets that can be reused.

Finally, I think it's important to also offer modders a career path. There is one already today, as some modders end up being hired by studios, but I think there is another option, which is to offer paid mods, and to find a good revenue sharing model for those. This is in everybody's best interest I believe, but it certainly won't be trivial to set this up.

So, will I support modding? If we can make some of the steps outlined above, most certainly!
 
Marcel Offermans said:
That project still has a long way to go @Mauro but I'm determined to continue working on it (as software is probably never "finished") but this forum and certainly this topic is probably not the right place to elaborate. I will post regular (quarterly) updates on my website and RD if you're interested in following the progress. And as for "mod support" @memoNo1 (keeping this slighly on-topic) I think it is crucial that, going forward, modding makes the next step. What I mean by that?

First of all, modders need to start respecting the IP of others. This means that if you model an existing car or track, you properly license it, and that you do not "borrow" assets from other simulations. This is crucial to allow any new platform to not just allow modding, but to also leverage it (in online competitions, etc).

Secondly, an optional but in my opinion important step, modders need to start sharing more, preferably open sourcing their work. Creating cars, and certainly creating tracks, is a huge job. Even if you work on them full-time, you'll spend many months. This development time is increasing rather than decreasing as the technical capabilities of our computers keep increasing. The best way to counter that is to start collaborating and the best model for that is open source. Work on projects on websites like GitHub, leverage each others' work, create assets that can be reused.

Finally, I think it's important to also offer modders a career path. There is one already today, as some modders end up being hired by studios, but I think there is another option, which is to offer paid mods, and to find a good revenue sharing model for those. This is in everybody's best interest I believe, but it certainly won't be trivial to set this up.

So, will I support modding? If we can make some of the steps outlined above, most certainly!
Click to expand...
Thank you for this extremely interesting feedback.
I am very excited.
 
literally the backbone of open sourcing is you cannot sell any assets you got for free. so how do you offer "paid mods" and open source in the same package.. its like drawing a square circle..
 
CeeBee said:
literally the backbone of open sourcing is you cannot sell any assets you got for free. so how do you offer "paid mods" and open source in the same package.. its like drawing a square circle..
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. Open source does not mean that you cannot sell any assets. You absolutely can. You can also include open source assets in your work (and, depending on the specific license used) that work can be either open source or closed source.

If you want to read a bit more about the definition of open source, I'd invite you to read: https://opensource.org/osd and feel free to continue reading there to learn more about the different licenses and what each of them allows.

I've been involved in open source projects a lot, and I'm a member of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). Their software and license explicitly allows you to use their software and sell it as part of closed source products. In fact, there are a few pieces of software in rFactor 2 (and Le Mans Ultimate) that come from the ASF, and there are many commercial products that leverage open source.

It is of course true that, since some asset is open source, people can choose to directly obtain the source code for it and use it. They don't have to use and pay for the version you are trying to sell them. This could work in simracing in two ways:
  1. If all the assets are open source, then buying an asset from its creator(s) is very similar to the concept of "donations".
  2. If, for example, you are making a track, you could use open source assets like trees, tire walls, guard rails, pit boxes, marshal huts, but still add your own (closed) assets to the track and sell the end result. You could even go as far as using almost exclusively open source assets and only copyrighting the way those assets are composed to form a track (I'm saying almost here as probably in that scenario the track layout would be something you add).
 
Marcel Offermans said:
That's not true at all. Open source does not mean that you cannot sell any assets. You absolutely can. You can also include open source assets in your work (and, depending on the specific license used) that work can be either open source or closed source.

If you want to read a bit more about the definition of open source, I'd invite you to read: https://opensource.org/osd and feel free to continue reading there to learn more about the different licenses and what each of them allows.

I've been involved in open source projects a lot, and I'm a member of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). Their software and license explicitly allows you to use their software and sell it as part of closed source products. In fact, there are a few pieces of software in rFactor 2 (and Le Mans Ultimate) that come from the ASF, and there are many commercial products that leverage open source.

It is of course true that, since some asset is open source, people can choose to directly obtain the source code for it and use it. They don't have to use and pay for the version you are trying to sell them. This could work in simracing in two ways:
  1. If all the assets are open source, then buying an asset from its creator(s) is very similar to the concept of "donations".
  2. If, for example, you are making a track, you could use open source assets like trees, tire walls, guard rails, pit boxes, marshal huts, but still add your own (closed) assets to the track and sell the end result. You could even go as far as using almost exclusively open source assets and only copyrighting the way those assets are composed to form a track (I'm saying almost here as probably in that scenario the track layout would be something you add).
Click to expand...
It all sounds great, but hardly affordable for hobby modding aspirants.
I don't even want to know what such a track license costs and then it has to meet the publisher's (License holder) quality standards.
It all sounds great in theory, but in practice it's almost impossible to finance.
In my opinion, this will cause it to fail and keep the community very, very small.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
What is the alternative? With brands becoming more aware of the gaming industry, you cannot continue to create mods with no license. The consequence of that is clear today. Games that allow such modding are no longer being made or updated. So when we go back to discussing the future of racing simulations again, I doubt we will see any new ones that are as open as Assetto Corsa or rFactor 2. Of course nobody knows for sure when Assetto Corsa 2 will be released and if it will allow modding, but I doubt it. Nothing has been announced regarding rFactor 3, and it seems logical that Motorsport Games will try to create more single-series games going forward after finishing LMU and porting it to consoles.

Not all licenses are expensive by the way. Yes, the big ones are. Nordschleife, Le Mans, Porsche, Ferrari, etc. But there are plenty of car manufacturers and smaller tracks that would certainly consider giving you a free license. Some officially licensed content that is in rFactor 2 falls in that category. So it's way too easy to just say "it's too expensive" and that also does not change the fact that the alternative is simply not legal.
 
Martin Vindis said:
Ever since LMU was announced, I've felt that rF2 has been neglected, which is understandable. I hoped that all the work going into LMU would eventually benefit rF2. However, considering the significant work still needed for LMU, I find it hard to believe that the developers will have time for both projects any time soon, and the last couple of months seem to confirm this.

rF2 is great in many ways, but it still requires attention. There are longstanding bugs and older premium content that need fixing and updating, and now I'm worried that this might never happen.

Have S397 said anything about their future plans for rF2?
Click to expand...
LMU seems to narrow the interest a lot. Many racers will have little to no interest in LMU. I'm thinking they've shot themselves in the foot this time and will lose out on the neglect of RF2 and lack of interest in LMU. Only my uninformed opinion of course, I maybe wrong on one or both counts. Either way I'm done.
Regards
 
Marcel Offermans said:
That's not true at all. Open source does not mean that you cannot sell any assets. You absolutely can. You can also include open source assets in your work (and, depending on the specific license used) that work can be either open source or closed source.

If you want to read a bit more about the definition of open source, I'd invite you to read: https://opensource.org/osd and feel free to continue reading there to learn more about the different licenses and what each of them allows.

I've been involved in open source projects a lot, and I'm a member of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF). Their software and license explicitly allows you to use their software and sell it as part of closed source products. In fact, there are a few pieces of software in rFactor 2 (and Le Mans Ultimate) that come from the ASF, and there are many commercial products that leverage open source.

It is of course true that, since some asset is open source, people can choose to directly obtain the source code for it and use it. They don't have to use and pay for the version you are trying to sell them. This could work in simracing in two ways:
  1. If all the assets are open source, then buying an asset from its creator(s) is very similar to the concept of "donations".
  2. If, for example, you are making a track, you could use open source assets like trees, tire walls, guard rails, pit boxes, marshal huts, but still add your own (closed) assets to the track and sell the end result. You could even go as far as using almost exclusively open source assets and only copyrighting the way those assets are composed to form a track (I'm saying almost here as probably in that scenario the track layout would be something you add).
Click to expand...


So users are going to give up theri time and effort and post it up freely so other users can package and sell it, and profit from other peoples work.. and encrypt it no doubt so it cannot be reverse engineered to be resold by someone else? Congratiualtiosn we jsut reinvented the AC ripping scene..

my last efforts in AC were to reverse engineer the assets from CM encrypted models for other modding groups and releasing them freely, then see yet MORE groups re-encrypt said assets and sell the same thing they have their pitchforks out for just months prior.. Ive seen the exact same car assets get a texture change, get called a "new version" and resold encrypted.

BUT - if you do not encrypt then lesser mortal can also steal your work.. I think the idea is noice, the reality is it cannot happen.

The modding community in MSFS is nicer, pay better, and we all pretend we are not stealing from each other.. more civilised.. ;)
 
Curated server based mod hosting. (ie: you can only get the models from an in game server) I think this was discussed in the ripping scene for CM ages ago, but someone got too busy cashing in on rain mods to complete..

think android/windows/apple store submisisons.. its a staged upload. your model has to meet all the minimum criteria, polycounts texture sizes, ffb files, AO files etc,
Server can use existing AI image searching to match textures and verify no assets are stolen from paid products, and or confirm asset is NEW add to db, or assets is altered.. if you have copied assets be offered a choice to make product "free to use", oppertunity alter your assets, or choice to pay a fee to original asset creator on a per sale basis.

Release product to a beta base for driving and QA, and vote on model making it to main game, and can only be added to game form inside game, (no external mod files allowed).

Then finally, offer the model for sale to userbase, with a share to the hoster, a share to the uploader and relevant shares to the creators of the assets this uploader may have re-used..

this is commercially viable and as its curated, control the theft of assets, and as uploaders will want to maximise their earnings, it encourage them to use new assets, and submit assets for reuse, rather than pay a slice to other users.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top