Mess in naming conventions

I really counted on ISI to make some clean-up in naming conventions suggesting best practices to work with.
Unfortunately I can see the mess which is not good for further work on rf2 platform.

Let's get Estoril track for example. It is located just in Portugal subdirectory, into which we can find 1.0 subdir.
Does some body may confirm that 'Portugal' directory name is distinct enough? Wiki refers to 6 different circuit in this country. And what about layout changes during a time?

Let's look at Sounds and Vehicles content. In Vehicles we can see Megane2009 subdir. But Is it trophy version, or stock one? who knows. What if some one will release stock version of Megane? And then we can check sounds for this car: only Megane directory? wtf? Why not named the same as mod directory?

I think current state is the worst practice we can start with. Especially since rf2 is intended to be modding platform supposed to be expanding for years.

 

I agree with you. Maybe ISI could release some modding guidelines so that file names, folder names etc would be more 'standard'.

Also worth mentioning is that Event Name in GDB should be changed, because at the moment in the server list the tracks are listed as "Inner Loop C", "North Loop" and so on which doesn't say anything about what track it is.

 

Yeh "Inner Loop C" and "North Loop" are pretty meaningless descriptions. I would have thought "Sepang - North Loop" or "Mills - Inner Loop C" were quite obvious names.

As pointed out, ISI can't mandate names modders will use. But I don't see the advantage of giving non-descriptive descriptions! It particularly makes it a nightmare to find a circuit in the dedicated server listing in rFactor 1 when for whatever reason 'Zandvoort' is listed as '1975 Dutch TT' or whatever.

 

Bingo..its all good having conventions...provided everyone follows them..only takes a couple to change the convention to stuff it for everyone.

 

You're going to end up with a lot worse named from mod groups, I would enjoy it while you can.

 

Yes, you are right. But it's consequence of lack of strictly defined conventions. People must have rules to follow them. I think ISI is the best subject to define them.

Btw: I can't believe you are suggesting that it is ok to do things in wrong way just because other do the same. Not too good aproach.

 

I don't think it's wrong. It's the name of a folder.

 

Are you kiddin', aren't you?

 

i remember years ago Gjon making quite a few posts at RSC telling people they shouldnt name a folder after a country and should stick to local track naming in rFactor 1...when i saw Portugal and Malaysia i was surprised

 

This is all very hard to believe.

 

With rF2 once you have your car and you've got loaded onto a track whether it's online or single player the game is fantastic!

It's such a shame EVERYTHING before you get there is utter rubbish! ModID system, The UI, All of it. This is just another thing to add to the list.

Just to do this is going to be a experience in itself. The track you want, The car you want.

Why are we surprised by the rest of it? It seams the deeper you dig the wore it gets.

I'm NOT some ISI basher because I use some other game and are just being a spammer. rF1 IS the ONLY game I have on my PC. I don't play XBOX or PS2-3 games. I don't compare ISI to any other companies releases.

My only comparisons are between rF1 and 2. At This stage rF1 apart from on track eat rF2 alive! It works and it's usable. rF2 has so many obstacles it's likened to playing chess. It's over specified to the max which makes it unfriendly to use let alone mod.

So no. I'm not surprise by the answers we received on track or mod naming.

Tim has a point when saying some mod teams naming of their mods are confusing at best. I'd have to agree. Some on the names are just letters that are meaningless to those that aren't aware of the series in the worlds arena.

I agree with MaXyM that the naming should give a far better description of the mods being released.

I agree with nearly every one who has posted here that as a ISI released gaming format they SHOULD be seen to be at least trying to set a presidents in mod naming instead of taking the "Who cares" approach.

 

Enjoy what? Terrible names? Inner C is a good name? Enjoy that? Really? If we do end up with terrible names, at least we can all point to a terrible example. How hard would it have been to name Inner C to Mills C? The mod groups generally consist of smart people- I'm sure they can figure out a descriptive way to name tracks. Like with the track's name.

 

Or you could just click on the track name in the dedicated server and it actually says Mills Point Inner Loop C underneath it......

Seriously guys ISI have a point. They came out with rF1 and said, this is how we want you to do it...and everyone ignored them, did what they want.

Now they come out pretty much saying, screw it your going to do what you want anyway, and you still go them.

Sure they could come out with naming conventions, but with any convention its only worth doing if EVERYONE agrees to follow it. All it takes is one idiot to not follow it, and its worthless.

HOWEVER something I have not tested and wouldnt mind if someone would as my time is a bit narrow at the moment.

The Folders are created from a point in the MOD/Component creation process (be stuffed if I can remember where, I am not at home right now).

Anyway has anyone tested what happens if you create another mod using that same name?? What happens on install?

Its something I have been meaning to do....

 

unless they make it where mods don't work without proper naming conventions.

 

What exactly is a proper naming convention?

 

That's a pretty disappointing response. This beta was launched with the intent to give modders the chance to test and provide feedback on rF2's overall structure, was it not? Yet here there's some in depth feedback from those people and the answer from ISI is only that it's going to get worse? I think the OP and various other posters all have very valid points that should be considered. Hell, even a member of your own staff agrees with them.

 

what ever ISI thinks it is...

I might add that after we ran into this issue, we started advising that people use stand alone installations for our mod.

 

It doesn't matter what ISI think or do, it's up to those who release mods/tracks to use names that are user-friendly.

It's in their interest to do so because it makes the track/mod easier to find and understand and more chance people will use it.