rF2 is coming along quite nicely, and also (track) content is produced at reasonably quick rate considering it's only a two-person track team. My criticism is mainly about the choices made regarding tracks, which I will explain below. For the early beta, the official content was Estoril, Sepang + 3 historic tracks. The historic tracks are a nice addition, but Sepang and Estoril look very aged now in 2014. From my understanding, these tracks were not surveyed or built with latest track technology (Sepang GDB says it's modelled based on 2007 version). These two modern tracks are not up to rF2 standards anymore. Next we got a number of licensed tracks: Lime Rock, Silverstone, Mores, Indy, that were carefully surveyed and all bumps included. Excellent quality in every sense. The community would then ask why tracks like Suzuka, Spa, Nordschleife, etc, could not be made by ISI when they are in many other competing sims. If I remember correctly, answer to this question was in the license pricing. It was also mentioned how much having a real license helped the track team, how it allowed exact surveying of the venue, etc. However, lately rF2 is back to fantasy tracks. Loch Drummond, Quebec karts, Jacksonville, Mountain Peak. Also from reading some of the comments from Tim, having not a license for these tracks is suddenly not a problem anymore. Written on rF2 Facebook page recently: This is a total change in strategy from what has been mentioned previously. My main wonder is this: if the only advantage of licensing is to have the real name, then why did ISI take the trouble of paying for Silverstone/Indy/Lime Rock in the first place? If it was as simple as changing the name, then rF2 could already have a number of community favourite tracks, including Spa/Suzuka/Nordschleife. Now instead rF2 has some licensed tracks that are very rarely driven by anyone, or suitable only for slow cars (Mores). Due to the licensing policy, rF2 currently has a big lack of tracks that are drivable with GT & open wheeler cars. Silverstone and Indy are the only full-sized circuits at moment (excluding outdated Sepang). As licenses are seemingly no longer a priority, I hope this means rF2 will in future get a number of full-sized tracks that have been requested by community.
No, it's a total change in strategy that you're assuming is one based on a comment answering a specific comment, along with other assumptions. We've always had a mixture and will continue to do that. No change whatsoever. The description of "fantasy tracks", which is actually where the comment you quoted does apply. Let us take a duck... If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, actually is a duck, but I call it an anatidae, it's still a duck. Do you folks realize how odd this debate is? "Quick, folks, let's freak out about a pattern! ISI released four GT cars most recently, it upsets me that they've decided not to ever do any open wheel cars again." If you guys are absolutely sure there's no more licensed content coming, I might aswell stop getting it then. Time and money saved there. Lighten up - again - please.
I do understand licenses have certain advantages and disadvantages. From the Facebook comment one could get the impression that focus had shifted away from licensed tracks, but I'm partly glad that's not the case. Anyway the fact remains that running a proper formula-type league on rF2 is currently very difficult due to track choices (whether due to licensing or not). For sake of comparison, rF1 had ISI content such as Nurburgring, Brianza (Monza), Northamptonshire (Silverstone), Barcelona and Montreal.
Old content from the days the tech hadn't fully matured will always look old. We'll revisit those gradually as time allows. The reason why it won't happen overnight is because people prefer the balance to tilt in favour of new content. Licenced content has always been a priority when timing and upcoming car content allow us to work on those tracks. Just imagine us releasing a licensed Nordschleife around the same time the stock cars are released with little to no ovals out there. You'd be the first person to analyse the situation and conclude that we haven't really thought it through. Community has begged for MPeak ever since the first screenshot of the track. We could have let it gather more binary dust and never bother updating it, or release it as-is. What Tim meant on facebook is that some devs build a track with less-than-ideal reference material, get it licensed and then survey the place, realizing how inaccurate their version is and not care about it. I've even seen a laser scanned track with an exposed wall section that would never pass FIA specs. Something worth analysing ... Our strategy hasn't changed in years. We just make good use of all opportunities and try to coordinate things with the car artists. Analyse this?
Estoril is great in terms of "technology." I love the feel of that track in terms of road surface and all the things that count. It only needs a few graphical glitches fixed and it would be OK for me to use for years. Sure, a fully updated version would be even better, but not at the expense of Toban or other existing tracks we're still waiting to get any version of. If Estoril looks aged in terms of graphical "technology," then good luck with tracks from hobbyist modders, because 95% of them won't look as good or be as accurate as Estoril or Sepang as they are now.
I don't personally use fantasy tracks but am happy for real world based tracks to use different names ( unlicensed ), the actual given name & billboards around the track can be whatever Nice to see a few tracks in the works ( very very closely based on actual real world tracks ), Licensing (although nice when possible) shouldn't halt work/release of those tracks that ISI would like to include, A title dosnt need 100 tracks, but a good batch of quality tracks to run a few different series in The "airport race & testing track"' will be a nice addition too
What does it matter so much if it happens to have been physically built on planet Earth or not? Spa, Suzuka, etc. would not be any different, worse, or better if they didn't happen to exist in real-life. They would be the exact same track. So, Suzuka, Spa, Mille Miglia, Le Mans, etc. would all be crappy-ass, boring, junk tracks that aren't worth a damn to race on if they didn't happen to physically have been built on Earth? Give me a break; the track doesn't change wether it happens to exist in real life or not. Completely psychological. I could release a track and say it's real, would you then accept the track and love it? Then how about if I told you two weeks later that it actually isn't real, would you then all of a sudden instantly just hate it and not race on it anymore? Then how about if 2 weeks later I tell you that I lied, it actually is a real track, I promise; would you all of a sudden then start loving it again? Would the racing all of a sudden be enjoyable again? Seriously, listen to how ridiculous that is. (yes, I know that you could do you're own research; I'm being theoretical here.) P.S. I thought the Quebec kart track and Loch Drummond were real tracks??...
Have you seen the real track? It's more flat than in the game, and every kerb in rF2 looks way wrong. It's quite poor... really far from ISI's standards in terms of accuracy/quality since LRP or so.
Lol I didn't realize I had accidentally entered uselesstopics.com... No, to be fair, the responses from the devs are very interesting. Just goes to show how quickly a community goes into a state of panic and starts overanalyzing everything. Sendt fra min LG-E400 med Tapatalk2
What? Why do you have to offend the OP' like that? For me this thread is very useful and I'm agree with him.
real tracks (im not talking about track names, mind) ground a simulation, simulations are all about capturing authenticity as closely as reasonably possible. so regardless of how you feel, its quite silly to completely disregard this aspect as inconsequential. i dont have a problem with fantasy tracks, can enjoy the hell out of them, but for me there is a different dynamic going on with them as opposed to real life tracks, particularly renowned ones (historic spa/monza) or ones im familiar with. it is the same kind of reason, except to a far greater degree, that laser scanning isnt insignificant, the user isnt getting an 'artists impression' but the real thing reproduced. as to driving a track you think is fantasy but is actually real, ive done it & finding out is was real was def cool & added to the experience for me. maybe that doesnt apply to you but it does me & probably many others. real names, etc, i dont care about as long as (optimally) the cockpit (hello iracing porsche gt3 car)/track is as close as possible to the real thing as possible & the data is legitimate/up to the standards of the other cars/tracks in the sim.
Nothing has changed concerning the direction ISI is taking with the sim. Nothing has indicated a change in direction. The devs have just confirmed that they haven't changed direction. So how is this thread useful..? Sendt fra min LG-E400 med Tapatalk2
As the headline says it's about discussing the track content choices made in rF2. My and many others' understanding was that some "community favourite" tracks (Spa, Suzuka, Nordschleife, Interlagos... you name it) will never be seen in rF2 due to price of license. But now ISI are in the process of making another couple of unlicensed ovals (based on real-life tracks and obviously with high quality). So if and when unlicensed content will be produced in future as well, why not make some of the really popular tracks for rF2? This approach would in my opinion benefit community more than to producing licensed tracks just for the sake of having the license, such as Mores, which is a well built track, but let's be honest nobody drives on.
Personally I'm becoming much more interested in the lesser known tracks. I use Mores just as much as I would use any of the famous tracks. It is becoming quite dull that all the community is interested in is F1 tracks. Sendt fra min LG-E400 med Tapatalk2
It is a bit funny to complain about the community wanting F1 tracks instead of small tracks such as Mores when we have Formula 1, IndyCar, Formula 2, FR 3.5, GTs (GT1, GT2, GT3, GT4...) as stock content.
I say do them all unlicensed as long they replicate RL tracks. If possible from the IMSA sports car series. Laser scan or not not a biggy as long it is ISI quallity (must admit a ISI track team fan ). Sure would be nice but the RRRE aproach seems to be what ISI has done on Silverstone and that is honestly more than good enough.
Its pretty funny that you think I only want small tracks. That's not what I meant. I'm just as interested in lesser known tracks, big as well as small, as I'm interested in famous F1 tracks. I only find it funny that much of the community is so damn narrowminded when it comes to content. Many people are missing out on a lot, only due to wrong track names etc. Its quite hilarious. Sendt fra min LG-E400 med Tapatalk2