Latest Roadmap Update - April 2020

Well yeah AMS2 is still very early in its life, plus with its varied more uncommon content it's gonna be a different kettle of fish compared to other titles. It will be interesting to see how it squares up in the future when the Multiplayer is fleshed out more, but it's very early days so can't really compare it to the rest just yet IMO.
As long as AC is still selling I can't see how that's bad for Kunos, it's basically free advertising for ACC with that regard and yeah RaceRoom has also seen a huge influx which isn't surprising as the whole round package is one of the best of all the Sims currently.

 

The main problem of rF2 in terms of commercial success is that, in order for rF2 to be considered by the greatest number as a good simulation worth it, it would be necessary for rF2 to improve enormously in practically all fields.

For those here who are familiar with rF2 and S397, I think you will agree that it is not possible within 2 years at least.

(At least that's my impression.)

 

I think you are confusing commerical success with the quality of a good product. Those two things don't allways go hand in hand if we are totaly honest. And I don't think that you will reach all the people who for example enjoy AC for it's easy accessibility no matter how hard you try. There are just things that are obstacles and are within the nature of this product. The most important aspects for S397, where they can focus on is to remove the teething issues, apply a certain standard to all the content and improving on the accessibility of this product as far as they can get. Now is the question how much they've improved the beta UI till it reaches RC state and how well the comp system is comming along.

 

Word

 

The two may not be completely related.

But in the case of rF2 yes.

The overall quality of the product is relatively poor (and rF2 is also very frustrating overall at least for me).

To reach a satisfactory level of overall quality, I think that with the resources of S397 there are easily 2 years, unfortunately.

And even if this quality is reached, unfortunately, commercial success is not guaranteed.

But obviously as a fan of rF2, I want both : Overall quality of rF2 + commercial success.

 

I think judging the overall quality of a product is difficult and very subjective if you don't apply common standrads. Wich quality are we talking about? Is it visuals, sound, features and their completion, physics, UI, content, AI, general presentation, functionaly over style ... ? There are so many aspects to the discussion of quality, that depending of where and how you look at certain products the quality of a product can vary alot from user to user. For example, someone who never uses AI and only plays MP might have a very different perspective about the overal quality of a product. Someone with VR will have a very different perception of somone using triples or single screens. Someone who loves GT3 racing will have a very differnt perception to someone who loves Karting. Someone who likes mods will have a very different POV than someone who considers them as amateurish guesswork. Just looking at the reviews on Steam, I wonder if your perception of rF2 is really as bad as those 85% of good reviews wich indicates a good quality product.

 

How can you be a fan of something, you think relatively poor and overall frustrating? Something doesn't add up.

 

rF2 is the only simulation that meets my criteria, and therefore the only one I use.

Fan ?

By default yes.

But just because I have used rF2 exclusively for 2,500 hours does not mean that I have to lack critical spirit :

rF2 unfortunately has many faults and is frustrating for me and for many people.

So the word "default fan" might seem more like what it really is.

Besides, I agree with @hitm4k3r , the appreciation will depend from one user to another (subjectivity).
But objectively, I do not see how one can say that rF2 is produced of quality in a global way : far too many things go wrong.

Anyway, I'm not trying to criticize S397 by saying this, just to be objective.

Besides, these argued messages are quite painful for me because English is not my native language.
Everyone thinks what they want and it's very good like that !!

 

Probably all know from soccer (at least in europe). If you are a fan of a team, you are more emotional and frustrated (than just neutral spectators) if your team you cheering for just lost a game.

EDIT: Though i never understood that, cheering for a soccer team. Mostly cause the team is geographically nearest. I admit I am a fan of rF2 too, but it has a reason. I just want most realistic simulation and racing as possible. For this i think rF2 is my home.

 

It's common for folks to say "don't worry about the commercial success of the sim" and enjoy the driving/experience. But unfortunately, my experience at iRacing suggest these two things go hand in hand, and its why I frequently bring them up.

In my case, I'd hope for a good experience in what I'll call "open world" online racing. This is different to leagues, which I'll call "closed world" - i.e. limited numbers of participants with specific goals/scenarios they are trying to emulate. I've helped run successful rF1 leagues, and know just how difficult that was, finding a group of people willing to compromise on all the competition aspects and join together for either one-off races or championships. Thinks like, race length, how/when to qualify & how many laps, use of rain/weather conditions etc. etc. There are so many options, getting consensus on these is almost impossible with a small group (say 50 or less). Its much more likely with a big group that you can find subsets who will compromise to give a result that "works" for most, or many, enough to run such events. At iRacing, even with 100,000 members, trying to run some series like IndyCar has been an exercise in frustration. Typically they've had only about 30-50 people committed enough to do a full season in the road/combined series (less than 10% of those who compete in one race per season at least). You really have to get the numbers up to get enough for some niches. Then if you want to have a skill-based matchmaking system on top of it, and get enough "splits" to create good groupings of like-skilled drivers, then you need even more. This is why you need many thousands of people online.

I'm sure there are many games where there is not much online activity, but they are still a sales success. I'd bet this applies to the Codemasters F1 games for example, and Gran Turismo. But to run successful online, its impossible to not have significant sales.

When we ran our rF1 league, we piggy-backed off another organizations developments of tools to run championships, servers etc. which primarily promoted sportscar racing (and was run by/with many of the best sportscar mod makers of the time). Our IndyCar and historic F1 championships were much lower participation rate. There was significant work to promote the league/find drivers, decide on the race schedule, and get the cars/tracks we wanted to run in a position to be used (testing etc,). For example tracks, we would often have to fix pitstalls and such. On the car mods, we'd go from 'cosmetic' things like changing the engine sounds or mirror resolutions, to more extensive tire and engine performance changes. For something like an IndyCar, the car performance for things like turbo-lag were not something directly modelled, but done via engine torque curve changes. This meant the torque curves weren't "real", but provided a similar net result to that seen in the real world, at least directionally. I'm sure some of the best rF2 leagues still do a lot of this; and even S397s own GT competitions, they have bespoke BOP packages not applied to the 'standard' DLC content the rest of us use. It's this stuff that has to stop; because you are only fragmenting the userbase by doing so, and creating 'cliques' and 'insiders'. Put everyone on a level playing field, and the (online) sport will grow. That's been the lesson of iRacing.

 

I would very much like the big update that was delayed and which was planned to be released a little over a week ago to be released this evening (considering that it is Friday).

I love this simulation, any improvement is a pleasure.

 

Your doctor would call it a severe case of addiction and would send you.... and most of us to treatment.

 

Interesting, is see rF2 as a chance to get me off of a lot more serious addictions.

 

Roadmap april :

"Our developers have been testing our new overlay system, making tweaks to ensure it can be properly customized."

Does this speak of the new HUDs ? Language barrier here.

 

I think it refers to replay overlays, rather than the new HUD system. (replays and live broadcast)

 

OK thanks.

In fact the replays do not interest me at all.

I would appreciate if Marcel told us about the HUD system during the next roadmap.

 

How can i compare two laps like that in the above image? Is it implemented in the game?
if not implemented, it would be fantastic to have that possibility in the new UI

 

I expected in view of what had been said by Marcel 6 months ago that we will very soon have a GT4 (or TCR) pack available.

Reading the roadmap, it seems that this is not the case.

I misunderstood something (by reading Marcel's interview on RD)?

 

These road maps and plans are pretty dynamic things at S397...what he said in March didn't hold up in April...plans change...just have to roll with the punches.

 

I hope it will always be relevant.

Because doing a GT4 + GT3 + GTE + LMP3 + LMP2 + hypercar multiclass race.....

Would be great !

GT4 is an interesting class I think.