List of Quality Tracks

Fair enough Kknorpp, I am not realy interested in re-igniting that stuff. I'd rather be focussing on what we have and can do. Like your list, there are probably people not liking it (ffs why is my track not innit!) but imo the rf2 community is already, or running the risk, of getting very fragmented and topics like these are helpful I think.

 

Fully agree, a respectful approach is the best option, focussing on obvious issues rather then personal ones. people will make up their own minds anyways, regardless of any list or opinion.
And hey, some might even truly enjoy something that is not 'up to standards', everyone has different criteria's or reasons.

If we can indeed have a shortlist of obvious criteria's then a 'review' can be an effort by many rather then one, it doesn't have to be presented in a negative way, this could also function as a pat on the back to some, and maybe even encouragement to others trying to fix issues.
I still think a wiki page would be the best way, might even just start one and create a template if Kknorpp doesn't mind.
Because a bottom-list category could well contain tips and related links to info about track making, so in that sense you don't just add someone's work to a low-end-category, we could also try and assist in providing info that helps them to improve.

Do you have something to add to wgeuze's list of the more obvious and clear criteria's Ethone?

 

I'd avoid any kind of list as a starting point. It just invites presuming that anything not on the list is of too low quality. Start by providing the important information, the objective ones (grid size, existing night lighting, existing rain reflections [if applicable, it's irrelevant on ovals]) and those that people can use for their own opinion-building like screenshots and videos. Get it up for as many tracks as possible, then list those already done purely for overview purposes. Don't let the list become the goal.

In the end, there is no reason to leave tracks out but time.

Concentrate on functionality. Some of it is obvious: Does it load properly? Are there unusual hardware requirements/recommendations (like more than 1GB of VRAM)? Is RealRoad implemented? Are there any significant functional bugs (fall-through surface, collision issues that damage/throw cars)? Does it have working marshals (animated and/or digiflags?)? Does it have dynamic shadows (if applicable)? Does it make use of the Track Detail/Shadow detail settings?
Be careful to not rule out anything that's not a really, undeniably substantial issue. Even something as central to rF2 as rain reflections (even though they're apparently FUBAR in the current build) can be an irrelevant feature if we talk about an oval instead of a road course.

If you concentrate on the list aspect you're only going to be hurting the community instead of helping it. I already wonder, why is Nazareth not on the list?

 

Thank you for your feedback, Ethone.

What I will do is add text above my list to expressly disclaim that there may be quality tracks that are not on my list. This could be, for example, because I do not know about the track, I haven't evaluated the track, the track is still in development, etc. etc. So I will clarify this.

Regarding the criteria, I am being 100% transparent about what criteria are so all my list is saying is that the tracks on the list meet the criteria. That is all. Are the criteria arbitrary? Absolutely not. Will everyone agree that my criteria are important to them? No.

Keep in mind that quality never means a product is good or bad, only that it meets certain criteria. When you buy a car, you pick the criteria that mean quality to you.

Having said all that, if the feedback I receive indicates there is consensus that only features A, B and C are showstoppers for most and so tracks that don't meet A, B or C should not be in the list but for tracks that have A, B and C, it would be great to see in the list which also have D, E, F or G.

Yes, excellent examples of "non-showstoppers" that are good to include as available features.

 

Are you aware of that your list already has some tracks that are not version 1.0 or above

-Lienz is 0.91
-Toban is 0.78
-HiddenValley is 0.1
-Dunsfold is 0.9
etc.

I would add that track shouldn't have any performance issues. So I wouldn't put Modern Spa to your list. Another good example is Blackwood but it's not in your list anyway.

Why don't you have Pocoyo Park and Long Beach in your list?

But this kind of a list can be good for those who don't have time to test each track before they have to make a decision where to race.

 

Are you more interested in measuring tracks according to your criteria or letting people decide for themselves?

I consciously chose the latter, because the former is dangerous to the community and only serves egoistic purposes. I hope you chose the right path. We don't need more people poisoning the well for all of us.

 

Most of these parameters are not quality markers. They're just features. You can have a top notch track and an cheap one with all those feature ON, so IMHO your list is something pretty subjective (even for the technical aspect) and can't help to much other users to make the proper choice.

My opinion is; the best way to choose a track is to try it, no matter how it can looks in some shots or what other people said about it. Your personal taste and preference do the rest.

I mean, you can see a new project with lot of potential but with some features not ready yet...or not fully implemented, and this doesn't mean you're in front of a low quality project.

For example, Dunsfold can't be in your list..as it's not a 1.0 release.

But, as already said, it's just my personal opinion.

 

My goal is to help people save time and avoid frustration.

Interested in your thoughts, but I believe it unfortunately has to be a trade-off unless significant resources or technology come to bear. For example, to evaluate every track just to conclude almost no features are present is a waste of time. On the flip side, we don't want to exclude tracks unnecessarily.

The other trick is to know when to evaluate a track. One option is to only evaluate tracks that developer declares are done and submits for evaluation. The developer could "apply" for "certification" and in good faith this would mean that he has reviewed and tested against the criteria and expects that it will "pass". This is how it is done in my field of clinical quality management where health plan apply for accreditation from standards organizations such as the NCQA.

Thoughts?

 

Original post updated with comments. Still needs much work and comments still very much welcome and appreciated. Thanks again!

 

@tuttle - Thanks for your feedback. I believe features absolutely can be quality "indicators". A couple of quick examples but I'm sure there are many more. Take AI. For some, incorrectly implemented AI is an instant non-starter. Also, since AI is something some developers dread and some don't do at all then I wouldn't be surprised if a set of tracks with correct AI has a higher percent that are quality tracks than a set of tracks that do not have correct AI. Can I prove it? No. Do I think people will experience it? Yes.

Real road? Who can live without real road? Also same argument with AI since some of the stuff required for real road is stuff that should be that way anyway.

I could go on but you get the point.

Regarding projects, I am not evaluating projects, only tracks which have no planned improvements. So, yes, there will absolutely be excellent WIP tracks that I won't have. Again, folks will need to roll the dice on those as WIP tracks are wildcards.

Is it perfect? No. Can ugly tracks slip under the radar? Yes. Are there any other solutions other than "just use ISI, Feels, Tuttle and VLM" No.

I hope everyone understands that I am not happy about the fact that this is a problem and nothing would please me more than for someone to fix it but as far as I can tell there is nothing to keep from having to sift through tracks that don't meet our criteria. Some of the tracks on my list won't be great and I will almost surely miss a few excellent tracks. But hopefully my list will be higher quality overall and people will hear about the really good stuff and also see good stuff being active online, etc.

 

My thoughts should be obvious. I have mentioned often enough how I think encouraging more/better modding effort through positive means is what we need for the community to grow. And how negative, exclusionary or outright elitist means are very dangerous when dealing with hobbyist like our modders.

Certification is entirely the wrong way. A "bad" track does no harm (unlike a bad health care). We have too few tracks, not too many. There is no need to exclude any tracks from anyone's consideration. There is no need to create castes of mods. There is no need to increase the workload of modders even further just to fit arbitrary rules for an arbitrary certification.

Yes, there is. It's called "try it yourself". If you want to provide info before people try a track themselves, to let them chose which tracks to try in the first place, give them screenshots and videos. Don't judge, don't score, don't "certify" or any such nonsense. We don't even have a file repository that provides screenshots and videos for you to check before downloading.

It seems we two do not have a common understanding to communicate on. I do hope you end up contributing positively to the community in the end, and not discourage our few modders or outright hurt our community.

 

I appreciate the effort and respect that you are showing in this thread. Responding to all the comments and explaining the criteria updated with people's suggestions. I muest say this is a very constructive thread and wil be even better if this positive attitude is maintained. I will update my tracks probably in summer. I start my summer calendar at work next week and will hopefully have some free time to dedicate to tracks. My goal is to update old tracks and hopefully finish ociokart.

Enviado desde mi GT-I9505 usando Tapatalk 2

 

Thanks, Spaskis.

@Everyone

I am trying to help and remain completely open-minded regarding what the right thing is to do, other than to do nothing. "Try every track" does not work, especially for newcomers.

Think of what their experience will be like, sifting through all the tracks.

And how do you even sift through the tracks?

It is hard to know even which tracks are "released" and "released" for what purposes? Alpha? Beta? Final until rF2 is "gold"?

And what are the open items for the track? If AI is an open item, then tracks is of new use to offline racers.

An idea just occurred to me. What if modders "submitted" their tracks to a "registry" mainly for communications purposes. They could self-evaluate what features their tracks have and also indicate what features are in development and what features they are not planning to add. And community members can comment on bugs and help out, like they do in this forum but the metadata filled out by modders themselves could be very useful with communications especially if a view was available so could filter by tracks with AI or tracks with reflections, etc.

So a modder would begin by creating a new mod development form which contained a checklist of planned features and modder can indicate which features are planned, actively being worked (with edit date stamp) and features ready for community test and features complete.

Below the form would be normal discussion forum functionality like here for communications, collaboration, encouragement, etc.

Community members could also "flag" tracks that appear to be dead or to dispute that a feature is complete, I.e. has bug of some sort, so track would indicate in view that has a dispute like Wikipedia does. Are you listening, Denstjiro?

Thoughts, anyone? Crowd-sourced approach good? Other ideas?

EDIT:

Another cool idea might be to add a "N" status for a feature which means "needs help" so people who know about AI can quickly filter tracks where modder is assign for help with AI or Real Road, etc. Form in wiki, are you listening denstjiro?, could also have links to other wikis with tips like Kevin's AI tips and Mario's scripts, etc. etc. so this form/wiki could also serve as a guide for modders who may not even know all the features so that would be helpful too.

Thoughts?

EDIT:

So statuses would be something like

NP = Feature not currently planned
P = Planned feature
D = Actively developing this feature
NT = Feature needs testers
T = Feature being tested
C = Feature complete

And view would have the following filterable/sortable columns or something like this

Track name
Length
Number of turns
Location
Etc.
AI
Real road compatibility
Etc.

Thoughts?

 

I am Kknorpp


Those ideas are getting close to what I tried to explain in the other thread, setting something up which actually helps people moving along, in this case both users and modders.
There is no reason not to try and do it all, Ethone's wishes for encouraging modders rather then discouraging are very valid, and very much my take on things as well. rFactor is at its best if the community collaborates and makes it better/easier/whatever.

But saying 'no' right away to incentives like this only kills the mood and possibly obstructs other future incentives. Much like ISI stopped confirming things or talk about what they are doing, because it always ends up in whining and bitching for months on end
Even with Ethones reservations in mind, or Tuttle's, if we don't try something we will never know. and since when is it a bad thing to make mistakes here and there? correct it and move on, no big deal imo. at least there was an effort on getting some focus on things as apposed to let everyone sit on his own island.

Even if the track-list in the wiki would just have links to their threads/sites/downloads as a starter, we already would have gained allot.
Start with a disclaimer that its all subjective, we don't mean any harm l etc etc, and the tone is set from the getgo.
use either this thread, the wiki thread to keep discussing things, track makers can go in and mention mistakes or updates, users can come in to point out a new track or whatever.

The discussion is fruitful though, based on some comments I am beginning to think less=better. so minimize the 'criteria's' to keep it as open as possible. The less you clutter the list based on subjective criteria's the more clear it becomes. so a minimalistic approach might be the best(?)
It would even be better if the wiki had voting options, that way everyone can vote on tracks, making it a list of popular-by-demand. without the reasoning behind it. (is this possible Tim?) or lets such a voting-list coincide next to the list based on criteria's.

Same for the ratings you mentioned, I was thinking in the same direction tbh, simple markers that would explain a certain feature and a Legend which explains what it means. sounds good imo.

I think if we would collaborate and add as much info on track-making as possible, helping out track makers and pointing them into any direction, then 'the list' would start to serve a much broader function. so one of the main focus points should be all about how to encourage or help, rather then just a top-to-bottom list with regards to quality.

 

Download links would be great.

 

So there is a LOT of common ground emerging, I believe.

So our mission statement (forgive me) would be something like:

"Support and encourage modders while enabling sim racers to more easily navigate the library of rF2 tracks."

Some important things to keep in mind IMO are the following:

- The tool needs to be initially populated and kept current with minimal administration/enforcement/oversight

For example, modders keep status current and community is responsive to help/testing requests and escalate tracks where status is inaccurate or developer disappears so these can be researched, marked as in limbo, etc. Some of this could be automated as well so an unfinished track could be marked as having no activity if no updates from developer within 30 days, etc. Just brainstorming for illustration. None of this needs to be exactly as I say of course as I am literally making this all up as I type.

- The tool needs to support metadata tags and views that leverage them (so people can see tracks without reflections or that need help with AI, etc.)

I am not sure if wiki would allow this?

 

Exactly what I was looking for! Many thanks Kknorpp001

 

What a great thread, this is exactly what rFactor2 needs, the community working together!!!!!

 

Not everybody is the same, and for some it could even be a motivator to be on such a list. If basic things on a track do not work for example, you can pretty much expect the track to be undriveable in the first place, like the Zandvoort dtm conversion.

I think everybody agrees information sharing would be a great start. For example, a shader list would be awesome. I spent 2 hours tinkering yesterday, breaking something which worked before because I forgot which shader it was... Also, if it is clear what the basics things are which make a track work properly, then that is much easier for people to find what they are looking for. I speak from experience here, if you have no clue what to look for, it's hard to look! Agreed, building tracks from scratch is a lot of work, and you don't want to scare people off just because of a lack of easy to find information. At this time all the information is way too fragmented.

Last but not least, most of the people are adults here, they have their own opinion, if such a list is enough to stop modding they probably weren't passionate about it to begin with...

I do get the impression some people see the list as some elitist benchmark thingie or something, I think that is a wrong assumption when its goal is only meant to elevate the overall standards.