Latest Roadmap Update - November 2017

I also am hoping that the Dedicated server is being refined and made easier. Also the Getmod functionality needs to be made easier to implement. Currently I have to have the rfmod uploaded to a paid dropbox account. Then I have to use a third party program, Noel Hibbard's excellent getmod manager, to install the link for the DL in the vmod.

I understand this was implemented to avoid the ever present mismatch error from rF1, but there has to be a better way to enter the DL link in the Vmod. Reliance on a 3rd party program and service, which could be shut down at any time, seems dangerous and ill advised. I am not suggesting that Getmod be abandoned, only that inserting the DL link into the vmod be done in a way that does not require the use of a third party program. I am sure there is a way to do it without Getmod Manager, but Noel's service is convenient in a way that I recall the manual way not being.

 

It depends what you mean by optimal FFB. Clipping is defined when FFB signal exceeds 100%, so it's just a symptom of having a too high % FFB signal delivered to wheel. It doesn't matter if the wheel is 3 Nm or 30 Nm in torque, it will still have the same clipping point in per centage.

So from that point of view, all S397 cars should be set to not go often above 100%. Of course if you increase FFB multiplier setting to higher than 1.00, then you will have more clipping. I agree that different wheels require different strength of FFB, but regardless of wheel the clipping point is always the same.

 

Signed up to hotlap competition just to see how the infrastructure work, and if this is a glimpse of what we could expect for the near future I really like it. There is a lot of potentiality in this system, can't wait to see it in use.

 

I wasn’t on about clipping point,I was on about the having the correct ffb strength per car per track,maybe that’s where we got mixed up.

That’s why I feel that the input display is pivotal to the basic user experience,ffb strength has to be set per car per track to get optimal information feedback,as it stands now in dx11 we can’t even configure the main control device fully,which to me is the most basic requirement of any driving game or sim,as without it ffb can and will feel off to many because of the quess work involved.

Iracings auto ffb feature was their best feature for me,out of the whole game,all you did was go out and run two laps,the ffb signals were monitored over the whole lap and once the feature was ready you hit a button,magic happened and it set the strength so you clipped in only the highest load corners.

Before that I used to keep notes of ffb strength per car per track to save having to do that manually.
Sounds like an insignificant feature but it’s not,it’s really quite clever

 

And when you have a bug and you are forced to remove the "player.json" you lose all the personnalized multiplier coefficients ...

What a pleasure !

 

That’s another great bonus of an auto ffb feature

 

save your player.json and when something bad happens http://winmerge.org/ with the new one

 

Are those FFB mults stored in the player JSON?

 

@dadaboomda I'll answer my own question: no. They're stored in all_vehicles.ini in the player folder. So removing player.JSON (and controller.JSON) does NOT affect the FFB mults.

It would be possible for a plugin to keep track of the FFB output (just as it's already possible to log it via telemetry, albeit a much slower option than an on-screen display) and even suggest a correction to the current value; unfortunately, the game doesn't provide plugins with the current FFB mult, and even if the plugin can work out which car in the all_vehicles.ini the current car is, that file doesn't get updated until you leave the track. So a simple plugin to calculate optimum FFB for the current car&track isn't practical, at least in a really user-friendly way. It would certainly be possible for the player to reset the FFB Mult to 1.0, activate an FFB check plugin, and have it spit out an appropriate FFB Mult after a lap or two based on what happened in those laps.

But again we're dealing with plugins, which increasingly there's little appetite for in the community.

 

As much as these roadmaps are great read and get to know what's coming up it's what's already been release that disappoints me the most.
Content why's.
When the GT-R Nissan Super GT was release it was the worst graphically made mod I've seen. It was a ISI started mod so giving the benefit of the doubt I bought the latest GT3 pack. Trying to paint and add liveries to this mod turned out to be a major disappointment once I started to work on the car textures. There is so much wrong that are just basic rules for defuser and alpha that have been done wrong on just the one car I've looked at.

The point is, If you can't even get the basics right what hope is there for the rest of the game. DX11 is not a magic wand, it can't fix bad graphics work.
All my mates have already moved away from rF2. Me, I keep giving the benefit of doubt but I keep being disappointed. Thankfully third part mods and track are being done far better then official content.
I want be buying any DLC from official sources if the current quality standard is anything to go by.

 

Hey there,

Can you point out what is done wrong with the GT3 templates? it might be worth while to point out to the community what has been done wrong and to bring it to the attention of S397 so they can improve or provide feedback.

 

@Lazza

I know that the multiplier coefficients are in the controller.json and not in player.json.

Unfortunately, delete the player.json = reset the coefficients.

Tested several times, the last time the last time 3 days ago (after big bug). I do not know what's going on technically behind, but that has that impact.

Next time I would copy the controller.json, hoping to reuse it.

NOTE: I have several critical bugs these days on RF2. However, there have been no updates. Am I the only one to have some ?

 

@dadaboomda I stand partially corrected. Though as I said the mults aren't stored in either of the JSON files, the all_vehicles.ini file is reset when you delete the player.JSON and force the game to make a new one. So you need to copy that one out (actually I'd say make a copy of the entire player folder), and copy it back in afterwards. Then all your mults (and FOV, mirror positions, etc) are restored.

 

If I understand your message, the entirety of it is about the graphic part.

This has never been the strong point ISI / S397.

We realize now that the graphic optimization is very poorly controlled. This annoys enormously, not the graphic part.

The graphics are still much improved, they suit me perfectly. Even the cockpits are better overall ... and when I drive I look at the road, so !!

Too bad you did not seem much interested in other aspects of the game that are exceptional (everything related to realism).

All I have to say is ... too bad for your friends who have gone elsewhere, they may win better graphics but lose the only truly realistic simulation.

With all my respect I think you have to relativize: the graphic part even if it is appreciable is totally secondary.

 

You say people are turning away from rF2 because of bad graphics work, but you only refer to painting and templates. Probaby less than 1% of racers have any idea about painting and templates. It seems you are disappointed in graphics from modder/painter perspective, which I can understand, but being a simple customer who drives the cars, I don't find much wrong with the GT3 pack graphics. In fact it's significantly higher in both texture resolution, poly count etc. than anything ISI ever built. Performance is the bigger issue with it, which relates to rF2 engine more than these GT3 cars.

 

It is a pity that the same majority of users that disregard graphics in RF2 forums doesn't translate in real customer numbers.
At this time 3.000 users are playing Assetto Corsa, 2.291 Project Cars 2, and 656 RF2.
You convinced me, graphics are not important, the GT3 pack is really awesome and state of the art, and the new FE DLC is a block buster.

Cheers.

 

@D.Painter ..
If skinning frustrations are the only thing bothering you, I have a proposal for you. This is only if skinning is the issue, that must be clear. My proposal is we work on a vehicle together that you can keep, throw away, do as you wish... and see if in that process we can eliminate some of that frustration. You pick the car. You start it and email it to me as soon as you start to frown. In turn I will ask something or possibly answer something and either we will get it right or we won't. During that time I am sure there will be less negativity from the editing experience and if nothing else we will have had fun.

 

Your statistical analysis has no probative value, because the users between these 3 "simulations" are totally different.

To make it short, there are 3 types of sim-racers with ALL the nuances between each of them.

- Sim-racers strongly focused on the greatest realism (many rf2 users)
- Sim-racers seeking a balance between realism and immersion / ergonomics (willing to sacrifice the best of realism to benefit from great graphics / immersion / ergonomics (AC)
- Those who are more oriented towards the graphics / immersion / ergonomics while seeking a realism having a minimum of coherence which distances it from the game of the arcarde type (PC2).

And there are all the nuances between the 3 of course.

Once said that, there is one thing that you have not taken into account: in any case, the followers of a "pure" simulation (turned towards realism before any other development), that is to say essentially using RF2, are not in the majority, they are even totally in the minority. .. and it's totally logical to me, so reading your statistics does not mean what you mean, and that's just fine.

 

It is not a statistical analysis, these are facts from Steam.
You distinction between sim racers is very interesting, and very new.
I wish you good luck making a living as a developer with the numbers of RF2 type of users.

Cheers.

 

but you cant compare apples with pears