Le Mans Ultimate

Looks like this thread has started to drift off subject a bit?
Sorry if that sounds a "bit off" - some forums end up with anti-rf2's going off topic to moan about everything rF2 :)

If I were running the LMU project then I'd be looking to PREVENT use of mods from third parties.
I'd imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to change the code to achieve this - although I clearly don't know.
I wouldn't want end users to install mods of unknown quality and potentially break the software.
It would also make the easier to work on any netcode problems if you control everything.

For an analogy let's have rf2 as Linux and LMU as Windows.
Average/casual person doesn't want to mess around with configuring Linux so use Windows as generally it's just install and go.
If you read through any of the forums you find postings where people have been manually editing JSON files or deleting user data folders and the "hardcore" rF2 user is "happy" to do this, but a newbie picking up LMU for the first time just wants to install and have it to work.

rF2 today is already pretty much there for tracks required for the WEC series - it will be interesting to see if any of these appear as new DLC for rF2 this year, and we also have a selection of suitable cars available.
I'd expect these will be the basis of the LMU package with new tracks and cars available to buy.
The recent "race against cars you don't own" upgrade has got around that problem so if you by the basic LMU package you'll be able race. Perhaps it will be a bit like the way iRacing works in that respect?
Just no subscription...

But we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
 
Last edited:
trichens said:
Looks like this thread has started to drift off subject a bit?
Sorry if that sounds a "bit off" - some forums end up with anti-rf2's going off topic to moan about everything rF2 :)

If I were running the LMU project then I'd be looking to PREVENT use of mods from third parties.
I'd imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to change the code to achieve this - although I clearly don't know.
I wouldn't want end users to install mods of unknown quality and potentially break the software.
It would also make the easier to work on any netcode problems if you control everything.

For an analogy let's have rf2 as Linux and LMU as Windows.
Average/casual person doesn't want to mess around with configuring Linux so use Windows as generally it's just install and go.
If you read through any of the forums you find postings where people have been manually editing JSON files or deleting user data folders and the "hardcore" rF2 user is "happy" to do this, but a newbie picking up LMU for the first time just wants to install and have it to work.

rF2 today is already pretty much there for tracks required for the WEC series - it will be interesting to see if any of these appear as new DLC for rF2 this year, and we also have a selection of suitable cars available.
I'd expect these will be the basis of the LMU package with new tracks and cars available to buy.
The recent "race against cars you don't own" upgrade has got around that problem so if you by the basic LMU package you'll be able race. Perhaps it will be a bit like the way iRacing works in that respect?
Just no subscription...

But we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Click to expand...
Why limit your product when it can help to make your product more interesting? There also is a difference between not supporting mods versus actively preventing the use of mods. This is just a small example, but do you think it's a smart plan to prevent people from getting their IMSA fix by building in obstacles to port tracks like Long Beach, VIR or to add skins easily, while people might find ways anyway? LMU could offer this without S397 actually having a lisence. I know, it's a grey area but this has been done before in sims like GTR2 and mods like Power & Glory. There is a reason why ACC is struggling compared to AC and there is a reason why AMS2 has gotten more interest the last couple of months. The big advantage for S397 is, that all the needed documentation for modding is allready there and that LMU will be a much more stable and established platform than rF2 ever was throughout the years. If the base is solid right from the start I see no need to prohibit modding. Contrary to the fears of many it can lead to a very healthy head start with an active community.
 
madcowie told me he tried to get a job with ISI back in the day but did not hear back. He was so prolific, it was a shame ISI botched rF2's release and modding support. I also recall a few modders turning down Lifetime versions of rF2 in exchange for their commitment to the game. CARTfactor(2) would have been massive, or anything from CTDP.
 
Simulation_Player said:
I like rallying and rallyx , but i think rf2 decision to stick to only asphalt is best. its hard to simulate car on normal paved road as it is, i rather get more complex physics focused on just normal road surface rather than some half ass road and dirt simcade.
ACC really shows how much you can push interms of physics when you are focused on only select group of cars. and i would pick quality over quantity everyday of the week.
Click to expand...

I think rF2 it's already good on dirt. There are many mods working well. The only downside is the dust trail not being customizable and too much for dirt tracks.
 
hitm4k3r said:
Why limit your product when it can help to make your product more interesting? There also is a difference between not supporting mods versus actively preventing the use of mods. This is just a small example, but do you think it's a smart plan to prevent people from getting their IMSA fix by building in obstacles to port tracks like Long Beach, VIR or to add skins easily, while people might find ways anyway? LMU could offer this without S397 actually having a lisence. I know, it's a grey area but this has been done before in sims like GTR2 and mods like Power & Glory. There is a reason why ACC is struggling compared to AC and there is a reason why AMS2 has gotten more interest the last couple of months. The big advantage for S397 is, that all the needed documentation for modding is allready there and that LMU will be a much more stable and established platform than rF2 ever was throughout the years. If the base is solid right from the start I see no need to prohibit modding. Contrary to the fears of many it can lead to a very healthy head start with an active community.
Click to expand...
Interesting theory.
I like that.
I hope you are right.
 
I'd just like to point out that the licence deal that MSG have is to produce a WEC / Le Mans game and that this was in place before MSG bought Studio 397, and that this is a ten year period - until 2031.
It's not unheard of for firms get get a contract sorted and then have to buy in the expertise to fullfil the requirements of said contract.

Although IMSA might be considered as a nice to have that would require access and licences that MSG may not have.
And if you want IMSA then in theory there is no reason why this can't be made available in the existing rF2 product.
In fact the WEC could be added to rF2 - we've seen this in part by the drip feed of the BTCC content.
Why create a whole new LMU product if you can use what you have?
Surely LMU will be in the "same mould" as ACC with a "closed" DLC offering?

We can but guess and wait at the moment ;)
 
graphicaluserinterface said:
madcowie told me he tried to get a job with ISI back in the day but did not hear back. He was so prolific, it was a shame ISI botched rF2's release and modding support. I also recall a few modders turning down Lifetime versions of rF2 in exchange for their commitment to the game. CARTfactor(2) would have been massive, or anything from CTDP.
Click to expand...
Hard agree. Yep.
 
davehenrie said:
But just think, every update will bring tears from those who demand 'The Ring' in every sim.
Click to expand...

If you don't see the major point of having the Nurburgring with these variants in all serious simulations, then you're missing out on the most major circuit in automotive history, and as far as I'm concerned you've misunderstood its major place in the automotive world.

This circuit is the only circuit totally apart for many reasons, and the only circuit that cannot be forgotten when creating a simulation worthy of the name.

Although it does not depend on the WEC, the VLN Langstreckenmeisterschaft Nurburgring and the 24h of the Nurburgring is so essential... If LMU misses this, for me it is a 0 out of 20.
 
Last edited:
pilAUTO said:
If you don't see the major point of having the Nurburgring with these variants in all serious simulations, then you're missing out on the most major circuit in automotive history, and as far as I'm concerned you've misunderstood its major place in the automotive world.

This circuit is the only circuit totally apart for many reasons, and the only circuit that cannot be forgotten when creating a simulation worthy of the name.

Although it does not depend on the WEC, the VLN Langstreckenmeisterschaft Nurburgring and the 24h of the Nurburgring is so essential... If LMU misses this, for me it is a 0 out of 20.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the almost CONSTANT whining by ACC users that would then be a common complaint with LMU users. Up until the recent announcement that SRO had acquired the series that races at the Ring, there was no legal avenue to bring Nords into ACC. Same would apply to LMU, the license would be WEC specific which would preclude even legendary tracks like the Ring. (Or Daytona, Indy, Bathurst etc etc) in the end this was just 'ornery old me having a go at ACC users.
 
There are no less than 3 things that prevent me from being enthusiastic about LMU :

1) Highly possible negative impact on rFactor 2, and already visible for 1 year. But that remains to be demonstrated (hello MSG, can you finally communicate!......).

2) Absence of Nurburgring with these variants.
Personally, I spend at least 95% of my time on it. 11000 km the last 3 month... I try to improve my driving in training like this and it is a success!!!!!!

3) Huge lack of variety in cars.




In other words, I consider a heavily improved rFactor 2 would have been the best option, at worst an rFactor 3 or with a different name.

*If LMU erased these last 2 faults, I would gladly dive into the LMU hype.*
 
Rui Santos said:
Don't uninstall it, i've gone several times during last 10 years away from rFactor2 but kept coming back to the best simulation experience i've ever had...
Click to expand...
Something will catch his attention, somewhere down the line, and he'll try it again. But the sheer scope of changes from now til then will have him instantly complaining. (By 'him' I mean any user who drifts away, not the specific person Rui was responding to)
 
Going back to the original topic, rF2 will most likely remain under development as long as features are needed for the other licensed products. rF2 development have posted here they are working on improving electric hybrids, why? To supply that code to LMU & BTCC.
 
pilAUTO said:
Huge lack of variety in cars.
Click to expand...

Well that is the point of a title that focuses on a singular series, on that subject in recent years you could argue there's been far too many official cars released for most Sims.
No longer do people Master a car, they jump from one to another and demand the next the day after release of the previous.
The art of race driving had been largely lost, LMU represents a chance (like ACC) to spend time with one car and truly learn to drive it.
 
It is not necessary to be the best or to be excellent on a personal level with a particular car.

If you drive IRL at the 24 hours Le Mans, mastering your car to this point is essential, however.

But when you have a very good level of driving, which is my case and which is the case of a significant part of the simracers, I do not see why being satisfied with few cars and 2 categories certainly very different, whereas one could easily master the vast majority of cars offered by rFactor 2 without any particular effort and without relentless training.

It would be a shame to limit one's experience IMO.

In my opinion, the most difficult cars to master in rFactor 2 are the 1954/66/67 cars made by Mantas and Woochoo, even with those I can go fast for 3 or 4 laps (75-100 km) of Nurburgring Combined with a lot of concentration without major mistakes leading to an accident : hypercars and GT3/GTE even without driving aids are so much easier next door!

So I'm for variety, I don't see why deprive yourself of it.


But my big disappointment is really the absence of Nurburgring with all these layouts, because of my specific and majority use of rFactor 2 (it remains indeed personal).
 
pilAUTO said:
There are no less than 3 things that prevent me from being enthusiastic about LMU :

1) Highly possible negative impact on rFactor 2, and already visible for 1 year. But that remains to be demonstrated (hello MSG, can you finally communicate!......).

2) Absence of Nurburgring with these variants.
Personally, I spend at least 95% of my time on it. 11000 km the last 3 month... I try to improve my driving in training like this and it is a success!!!!!!

3) Huge lack of variety in cars.




In other words, I consider a heavily improved rFactor 2 would have been the best option, at worst an rFactor 3 or with a different name.

*If LMU erased these last 2 faults, I would gladly dive into the LMU hype.*
Click to expand...

Why would a game revolving around the World Endurance Championship have the Nordschleife? Hypercars can’t run there, GTE can’t run there, LMP2 can’t run there.
 
@AMillward

IRL they don't drive there, yes, but in simracing it is possible and a good experience and interesting in term of driving experience.

But what saddens me is this huge investment around LMU, without the slightest doubt to the detriment of rFactor 2.

I repeat, an rFactor 2 that would have received the same investment in 2023 and 2024 that it received in 2022 would have been so much better than a new game.

This is just my own opinion.
 
Ummm... I don't see anyone complaining that you don't have the Nordschleife in a NASCAR based sim...
In the same way, I don't recall people complaining that ACC doesn't feature the Charlotte Superspeedway.

If you want an all purpose sim then you go down the rF2 route, but LMU ( I suspect ), ACC and NASCAR 21 are designed to be series specific sims.
S397 and MSG need an extra revenue stream - LMU will be this as it is designed to operate differently and appeal to a different audience
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top