Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by 88mphTim, May 30, 2014.
Think people are managing to over complicate something relatively simple.
Out of interest, do you want to reveal which third part mods you hold licenses for?
Honestly I wouldn't like to do something like that in a public form. Ever.
Not at this time.
Mario's is working on a laser-scaned Laguna....
No you do it without the public even knowing about it
Until the point the standard of quality is high enough
If it ever gets to that level
If a modder what's to put something on the forum sub standard as they do now & so it remains unpassed
I didn't talk about the ranking. Its fine for me and your idea is OK.
I just cannot accept that content should be filtered by some people's quality standard that fill their mouths talking and begging for quality and in many cases do not want to pay for it.
They probably think that countless hours of dedication required for making such quality content are fairly rewarded with a "congratulations", "good job" or their quality approval. Some would even bitterfully complain for things such as using fake publicity to avoid legal problems or for including some invented kerbs.
But let's change to the main topic that is what this thread goes about...
What I have understood from this thread is that ISI's goal is to facilitate the process of joining servers by a better support for modders. This would include the internalization of Noel's getmod superb tool's concept.
In order to implement this feature, which is the key for easy joining the servers, they need to cover several aspects. Lets go through them:
1) Noel's tool, or better said, ISI's component registering system does not work with multicomponents. Therefore, up to today, in order to register a vehicle, the multicomponent needed to be splitted into its vehicle, sounds and talent components. This a pain in the butt especially since no specifical links existed for them and now need to be created somewhere... However, starting with indy car, ISI has cleverly started to release vehicle as ... simply vehicles!!! This makes the registering a lot easier: one car, one track and a vmod. All automatically downloadable if not already installed. Simply perfect... well, almost but not absolutely as we will see later.
2) Legal problems. For sure ISI cannot afford to have an illegal conversion from let's say a track ripped from for example projects cars. Therefore they want to make it transparent and provide a content database where registered content can be properly checked for validity. Logically extra options could and should be added to get a better payback from the effort this implies: images, download links, comments fom the author, ratings, setups, skins and basically everything that could be useful for track and vehicle components.
3) Updated components. When registered, they seem not be linked to the modifed component and unless previouls installed the tool will not download them. This is the biggest weekness so far. When ISI presented current component update system, prior to releasing rF2, it lood a very promising and powerful system. However ISI has never handled this correctly within mod manager. The simple concept of "updates will modify a component by adding or replacing existing files but preserving original component's integrity" seems not to be not clearly understood. Also, as a side comment, the necessity of erasing (or marking for deletion) files that need to be removed is not implemented that I know.
4) Vmods. They are not a problem and can already be downloaded, which is very practical. However, I would like to point out how easy for league managers is to implement small updates in cars or tracks to solve a last minute issue. People joining the server automatically downloaded the update containg vmod. Absolutely perfect.
As a summary I think it is quite clear that ISI's intentions with this thread and other late movements, is to improve functionality and has nothing to do with quality. They just want that people have a beteer playing experience. I guess that if someone wants to join a server where they are running a crappy track and a crappy car, he has the same rights to enjoy it as long as all the content is legal.
In any case I would not expect some people to ever understand this because they are not capable of seeing beyond their own prejudices and childish and disrespectful manners. They just think it is another thread about the f☆▪¤■♤g quality.
This concerns me greatly. Please commit to working with the modders to help them improve their creations to full current ISI standards and then include in the main game with co-credit. This adds to rF2 and adds to the chances that we will get more tracks in the future because the modders will have greater knowledge gained from working with you. Your staff get 90% (or whatever) of the job done by someone else. Everyone wins and we don't have needlessly sub-par tracks floating out there that degrade rF2 reputation, although I am suspecting the ones you are talking about are already pretty good.
I would also recommend a knowledge-sharing approach for tracks you haven't licensed. The only thing missing from rF2 now that we have recently seen more of the future promise delivered is the prospect of a bunch of high-quality mods from the community. That is partly because it just takes so much work to produce them and partly because even if you are an exception and have the talent, the process to do it in rF2 is not well documented/standardized.
Both would require scratch builds for us.
Why would someone do that? For pay mods?
I would simply add that there is a huge need for dedicated tools specialized for modding tracks and vehicles (UIS, huds, ... as well, if required) As long as the learning methods and modding platforms do not specialize we will not get 100% of what amateur modding community can give to rf2 World.
It is clear that these tools are required and would be highly appreciated when freelance guys like mario morais, dave noonan, brendon pywell, chapman and the guy making the vehicle one whose name I cant remember are putting lots of efforts in improving modding tools.
I would strongly suggest ISI to hire a couple of those mentioned and start developing a tool for which we would certainly pay for a license if it save our valuable time and reward the required efforts. I would be willing to donate today 100 eur as a proof of determination. The price of the tool should be less I would recommend. Older people can typically afford a larger fee but when you are 20 you dont have 100 euros to put in software. A little bit offtopic but I think that in general there should be a different pricing in all kind of professional software for people under 25-30.
I think it could be worked out to develop a good encrypting method for MAS files. Only the tool (and rf2 of course would open encrypted files) It sounds fair that ISI would want to protect their work from being used to develop content for other companies racing plarforms.
I know nothing is 100% secure but at leaat you get two benefits.
1) It prevents from many people getting the content due to lack of knowledge. I personally dont know how to crack an encrypted mas although I know it has been done by others.
2) The best legal proof that you do not want to share content should be that you protected it. My opinion.
My two cents and be sure that alqays trying to help our community despite my way of being and writing which I know its direct and critic sometimes.
enviado mediante tapatalk
FWIW, I support giving track licenses more than car licenses. So far, only ISI can make magic vehicles IMO. Other car mods (at least historic) always fall short and are also never fully completed.
And who does magic tracks except feels3 (already gone to Simbin) and Tuttle (already hired by ISI)? The rest of the tracks are not up to ISI-feels3 standards. And 90% of them are ports from other games anyway.
Does anyone have thoughts regarding what it would take to get 60s tracks? Licenses don't appear to be a barrier so is there some way to motivate development of a 60s track pack?
Marc Collins- "the process to do it in rF2 is not well documented/standardized." What is missing?
Spaskis, so you want ISI to hire a bunch of people to make a tool that would probably cost a good chunk of change to make but offer it cheap? Im fairly sure that is not a very good business model with such a limited market. Problem is that tool already exist. I know there are plenty of other programs out there other than 3ds Max but the thing is, ISI only offers plugins for Max. I would expect it to be less hassle with only one set of plugins to update each build. rF1 still has content being released today with the current tools available. I don't understand why people can't do the same for rF2.
Yes, thank you for clearing that up for us Spaksis. very helpful and not at all insulting. looking forward to more of the same.
Check out Symmons Plains. IMO, one of the best tracks for rF2 right now outside of ISI, though it is a track that doesn't "fit" a lot of cars here right now.
I'd pay to get rid of 90% of the current modding content lol
no seriously, QUALITY is an issue, I really don't care who makes the track
( although I take note who it is & thank them & eager to follow them on any other new projects etc )
I have also contributed £'s when donations are an option to work that looks as if it's going in the right direction quality wise
EDIT -summons plains thanks empty box I'll take a look at that
People have to start somewhere. I will say with rF1 that was the nice thing about rFc. You could see a simple vid and some photos before downloading. Made your choices of downloads easier. lol
Separate names with a comma.