WIP - List of tracks meeting certain criteria I am replacing this list with this https://sites.google.com/site/rfactor2navigator/ until the community is ready to support something more mature.
Left out : Bahrain Monza v110 Melbourne (DRS) v101 Monaco (DRS) v101 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6pNGkjEaCk Montreal (DRS) v100 Bahrain is a quality track and its not finished yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IVNkcsVnuw (after rendering doesnt look so good, but get a fair idea of the quality)
This is a bit of a nitpick but Texas World Speedway has been released, not Texas Motor Speedway. I only mention that because both are real life tracks and the latter one is used by NASCAR.
some of those tracks have AI issues, Oran park version I have has poor poly counts unless you have a different version. these lists whilst nice are fairly pointless as everyone has different quality standards.
Yep, I love the old Pukehoke but am put off by the pop up graphics and it doesn't fit the OP's criteria with this and with the fact that it's a version 0.5.
It depends on what we individually define as quality Most of the tracks in the list I uninstalled straight after trying, my list would be less than half in qty
Being a graphics geek, the tracks must have reflection in the car, if the track dont have that is a no for me, some of your list dont have that, in a 2013 game must be a standart. I thing a list like this but in the end is soo subjetive.
I don't think the version number is relevant, quality is quality, doesn't really matter if it is 0.9 or 1.1
This thread is a nice idea but highly subjective in practice. Perhaps the ISI tracks should be left off the list as we know they are quality? Just have a list of mod tracks? Many of the converted tracks are simply not good enough so I've uninstalled them. There are a few others that have a lot of potential but need updates such as Fuji and Botniaring.
It's always interesting IMO to know other persons opinions, and I appreciate to check your list Knorpp001. To get opinion of even more people, I would like to see a poll where each person can vote or give a note to one or several tracks. This list could be sorted with most popular first. Like this, somebody like me who don't install each time each tracks can see if a track received some good feedback from the community, so he will decide to install it to test it too. For example, it took a long time for me to figure Toban was popular. I discovered this by reading tons of post from tons of different topics, checking small remarks, etc. So I discovered this track far later after nearly everybody... As this is not the "Idea of the Century" possibly somebody already created such list alimented by drivers opinion?
While you mean to be helpful Kknorpp001 and certainly there is released stuff I don't care far, this list is likely to have a chilling effect for the release of tracks, cars, and mods. Consider the new modder with his first track. Does he want to release it to possibly be placed in the non quality category. Maybe somebody's early tracks are not Feels3 quality, never-the-less encouragement is more likely to inspire them to grow in their modding skills. I think the publishing of this quality list could be counter productive to encouraging more quality mods. Perhaps a less chilling idea would be a review thread that offers constructive reviews of the various track, cars, and mods. (would be alot of work) Happy racing Sam Weaver
Encouraging modders, yes sir. However, it is starting to sound like making excuses for people every time the world quality comes up somewhere, lord protect the new modders. If they are that easily discouraged, I wouldn't be surprised they probably will give up the first time documentation doesn't hand them a ready to go solution to their problem anyway. If every attempt to raise the overall quality is talked down in favor of beginning modders, but nothing else contributed to help that group, I don't get what the point is anymore. I think this list isn't a bad initiative at all, if we can have an objective set of ingredients to decide what makes the list and what doesn't, it would be the better for it, especially when there is already quite a lot of tracks to choose from Before the elitist comments come in, I consider myself a very new modder, and not at all offended or discouraged by these sorts of topics!
Well I like this approach much better then Kknorpp's earlier thread about banning modders due to bad conversions and whatnot It is indeed subjective and personal but some things can be classified. Maybe break the list up into different levels, like on par with ISI tracks, excellent tracks and good-but-questionable. and just leave out what you deem as redundant due to...whatever. Even if others help out with such a list it remains a personal classification but it would be a handy list nonetheless, especially for people just starting out. i would probably use such a list as league admin to use as a shortcut in trying to find suitable content. would even be better if known issues where listed, like a track can be awesome in every aspect, but one tiny item like not enough garage boxes would take it of any league-list right away. Come to think of it, this is actually a good subject to put in the ISI Wiki? Have a simple article listing track and their d/l links, maybe a brief summery of what certain objectives are in marking a track under which category (good/bad/ugly) ? If done respectfully this could also function as positive reinforcement to track makers. But it would have to be somewhat clear on what is regarded as technical quality, and subjective quality. maybe that's a spoiler already.
Technical quality can be just a bunch of checkboxes like: - realroad compatible - full range of garage - alternate garage spots - full grid (24?) - basic AIW (left, right, middle, fast, block) - dedicated ai lines - hdr profile etc.
@rhamm - Texas Motor Speedway changed to Texas World Speedway. Thank you. @Uff - I looked at your list but as you said is subjective and only distinguishes ISI, Feels3, Tuttle & VLM @MarcG - Thank you for AI comment. If you can think of specific tracks that would be helpful and I will test those for AI first. Also, I do intend to test all tracks for AI but feedback from people like you and a review of forum threads for comments regarding AI and follow-up with developers regarding whether they agree with needed improvements, etc. may also be needed to ensure accuracy in this regard. @Davy TASB - Thanks for Pukekohe feedback. The last time I drove that track was an insane online race which was incredibly fun but so intense I may have missed the pop ups. I will test again and remove or get back with you to clarify if I don't see anything. @Adrianstealth - Thank you for feedback. If you remember, can you give some example reasons why you uninstalled them? @pay2021 - Excellent feedback thanks. This is perfect example of objective quality criteria, especially if not difficult for modder to do. Do you know if it is difficult for modders to do this? @pay2021 and all who say this is subjective - I don't understand this at all. The entire purpose of this list is to be objective. So, let's evaluate the criteria one-by-one and determine whether it is objective or subjective: - No correctible AI problems. To be fair, there could be disagreement on this but my experience has been that this is not the case at all. In fact, I have been very pleased with the assessment, analysis, troubleshooting and support of AI improvements where modders are willing to make it correct. If a situation comes up where there is disagreement, then I will attempt to resolve the disagreement or indicate that there is debate regarding AI if there is sufficient credence to the complaint. I should also point out that many modders are honest that they do not enjoy getting AI correct and that is fair. However, their tracks will not make my list or an indicator will need to be added to reflect AI needs improvement. - Real road is functioning. This is objective. - No bumps caused by inadequate polygon count, etc. This is objective. - No correctable visual anomalies. This is objective unless their is debate regarding whether it is modder or ISI's fault but I know no examples of this and will resolve as I resolve AI disagreements above. - Reasonable track surface textures & resolution. I believe this is objective. For example, Plickbadger doubled Texas World Speedway's track surface resolution without debate. I don't believe anyone would debate that the earlier Euskotracks road surface textures need improvement. Note the word "reasonable". - Reasonable off-track surface grip. Again "reasonable". I am unaware of any modder debating needed improvements here. They have all been addressed. - No performance problems. Again, tracks will only be excluded for this when there is clear consensus that an issue exists. - Legal / with permission if a conversion. This is objective. - Track is version >= 1.0. I agree with those of you who commented that a track must not be 1.0 to be on the list. So I will clarify that this is more of a sanity check for me to confirm with developer that there are no outstanding improvements related to the quality criteria that could keep them off the list. @Jamezinho - Thanks for feedback. There are a number of reasons I would like to include ISI tracks but the main one is to have a complete list in one place from which to select tracks for championships, etc. Is there something objective about the converted tracks that you don't like that I could add as a criteria? I am also interested is what you think of Toban and Lienz, for example, as I believe these to be stellar tracks and are conversions. I will look into Fuji and Botniaring threads regarding outstanding improvements and any specifics you can give me will also help as I will reach out to developers regarding your feedback and feedback in threads. Thanks again. @YoLolo69 - I believe popularity is one possible indicator of quality but is not conclusive. By definition, a poll would be subjective unless the question is worded very carefully, for example "I drive this track" or "I am an admin and have included this track in a championship" or something objective like that. Otherwise, you introduce all manner of subjectivity if it is just an open vote of "vote for your favorite track" because someone votes for it because he likes the IRL track versus the quality of the BUILD of the track, even if the IRL track is not a "good" or "fun" or "important" track, etc. etc. etc. I believe this could happen with cars too as some people might just want to drive a T5 series type car b/c they admire those IRL so drive them because they want to drive that type of car while I drive the best and most fun mods because they are well done, challenging, and because their charcteristics translate well into sim racing, etc. etc. almost completely without regard to IRL. Back to tracks and polls there is also the skewing of people who respond to polls not being a representative sample of the community, etc. just like any other non-scientific poll on any subject. Having said all that, however, I personally would find the results of a poll that was carefully constructed interesting nonetheless and I also monitor server activity to some degree because that shows where people are investing there time, etc. So the results of a well-constructed poll with reliable tools and a process for re-polling periodically so new tracks can be voted for as they come out, etc. etc. etc. I believe would be very cool for someone to do and I may even include that info in my list if I believe it is done well. Rfactor central had ratings and hall-of-fame, etc. but not enough rigor in the process or sampling or refreshing data, etc. etc. etc. so if someone does this really well then sign me up b/c I think it would be great. I would even help with consultation/feedback on design of such a system if someone had the tools and energy to pull something like that off and commit to maintaining it, etc. no doubt. @samuelw - Thanks for your feedback. When you say there is released stuff you don't care for are you speaking you personally don't care for it or you don't care for it because it is not quality? I can't control people's personal interests regarding tracks and, like everyone, I have my own preferences and biases too. This is why I want to keep the list as objective as possible and focused on quality and not fun or interesting or important or popular or any other non-objective criteria. If there are objective reasons you don't care for the released tracks that are not in my list please let me know. This list will not guarantee that you will enjoy a track or care for a track. That is too personal and also objective. Regarding the "chilling" effect, there is none b/c there is no "non-quality" category in this list. This list is only the quality tracks. Also, I have no "Feels3" criteria. Reviews of the track I believe are subjective and fine if someone wants to do that but if the review is objective I would prefer the "review" to be in the track thread and the developer to be able to address any quality issues and then get on my list. @wgueze - I appreciate your reasonable perspective on this list as a new modder. Thank you! @baked bean - Funny, I did realize I forgot Aintree (AWESOME TRACK FOR THE RECORD) but then I remembered that there are AI issues. Correct? @Denstjiro - Glad you like this approach better, but please do not put words in my mouth. Those were never my words and if you read my original post and my follow-up post in that thread I believe that is clear and no one challenged me on anything in that thread that I actually said or didn't clarify in my follow-up post . There were a ton of things in that thread that I STRONGLY disagree with, never said and indeed countered in my follow-up. Please re-read. @wgeuze - Excellent criteria. Thanks! I may need to PM you for clarification on how to test some of these. Not sure HDR profile would keep off list unless there is a problem? Or maybe just include in comment that HDR profile is available or is not available, depending on what the exception is but not keep off list? - realroad compatible - full range of garage - alternate garage spots - full grid (24?) - basic AIW (left, right, middle, fast, block) - dedicated ai lines - hdr profile
I'm not sure such a list is help- or useful in itself. Above all we should encourage all efforts to create tracks. By leaving any tracks off that list you're making a statement that they're not good enough according to some arbitrary criteria. That's a bad statement to make. That isn't to say you can't do something like that list, but in a more positive way that doesn't make unconstructive negative statements about any track you leave out. Last year I wrote some reviews about tracks with exactly that goal. No claim or even just faint impression that there would be a review for any and all good tracks. No scores. Plenty of screenshots (here's Croft's review) and a video for people to make up their own mind. Provide the information about the track features (like grid size, night lighting, rain reflections). Reflections might be important to more graphically minded people, but for someone with a less powerful computer it might be a completely useless feature. Provide the neutral information, not the judgement. I think the reviews I did really did great on that but I couldn't keep up with the time required to do them. A proper reviews cost me about a day. Celebrate the awesome, avoid puting down the not-quite-there-yet at all costs.
