ACC is arcade? LOL. What are the objective facts that made you think so?
Also even Project Cars 2 is a sim. It simulates A LOT of aspects. It may be more inconsistent and even wrong in some areas, than other top sims, but it's not that bad.
Released New Release Candidate Update - Client 7969457
- Thread starter Paul Jeffrey
- Start date
Also even Project Cars 2 is a sim. It simulates A LOT of aspects. It may be more inconsistent and even wrong in some areas, than other top sims, but it's not that bad.
juanchioooo
Registered
the same objective facts that make me think and feel that rfactor and AMS are very good
What do you think differently? Well, I must respect your opinion, even if I don't share it....
this is like the codemaster f1 even worse than the ACC, however they also simulate don't you think?, yes they simulate but more arcade and more bad, well more of the same
What do you think differently? Well, I must respect your opinion, even if I don't share it....
this is like the codemaster f1 even worse than the ACC, however they also simulate don't you think?, yes they simulate but more arcade and more bad, well more of the same
DmitryRUS
Registered
Here people are screaming because they want to revive rf2 and achieve the declared development of ISI. First it was a big alpha-beta, then a beta and suddenly a release with further development. As a result, development stalled under the guise of a "small team" of developers. Remember footage from the first autocross and gravel track. Where is it? Everyone was waiting for the support of the mod, at least at the level that it was, but with improved graphics.
The first mistake made the system of packaging and installation of mods more complicated.
The second mistake, they tried to do something with the graphics, proving that DX9 has a lot of potential.
the third, at the expense of the army of fans, wanted to collect an annual online subscription for further sponsorship and development of the game. (but the release of the unfinished alpha-beta just "kicked everyone out")
Fourth, they are not game developers. They are just good programmers who made an old engine that they wanted to adapt to modern requirements for a very, very long time.
Remember how they refused to scan real tracks, proving that they are great at modeling without scanning.
For my loud statements and criticism, I have been blocked more than once and I won’t be surprised if they delete me again.
I follow the development with the hope that after all, one of the developers will look at the reality of what is happening.
RF2 is good, but not in the way it was described from the very beginning and what it would be.
Instead of rf2, I now have a lot of fun modeling my cars for LFS S3. Tracks cannot be modeled there yet, but on the other hand, I simply and intuitively model cars, it’s nice to ride even with old graphics. Modeling tracks for AC.
I really wanted to make tracks for rf2, and I have a good base in rf, but the stupidity that the developers from ISI and studio 397 provided continues, I was completely stopped by the desire to model something for rf2.
This is my opinion and vision of what is happening with rf2.
The first mistake made the system of packaging and installation of mods more complicated.
The second mistake, they tried to do something with the graphics, proving that DX9 has a lot of potential.
the third, at the expense of the army of fans, wanted to collect an annual online subscription for further sponsorship and development of the game. (but the release of the unfinished alpha-beta just "kicked everyone out")
Fourth, they are not game developers. They are just good programmers who made an old engine that they wanted to adapt to modern requirements for a very, very long time.
Remember how they refused to scan real tracks, proving that they are great at modeling without scanning.
For my loud statements and criticism, I have been blocked more than once and I won’t be surprised if they delete me again.
I follow the development with the hope that after all, one of the developers will look at the reality of what is happening.
RF2 is good, but not in the way it was described from the very beginning and what it would be.
Instead of rf2, I now have a lot of fun modeling my cars for LFS S3. Tracks cannot be modeled there yet, but on the other hand, I simply and intuitively model cars, it’s nice to ride even with old graphics. Modeling tracks for AC.
I really wanted to make tracks for rf2, and I have a good base in rf, but the stupidity that the developers from ISI and studio 397 provided continues, I was completely stopped by the desire to model something for rf2.
This is my opinion and vision of what is happening with rf2.
You mean that product that needed over a decade to release a single car by a certain german manufacturer? Is it even there yet? There are people showing that it's very well possible to develop great content for rF2, so stop to pretend that you can't do sh*t with it. You accused S397 for not being able to use their brains, so now it's your time to shine. You certainly lack the understanding of the difference of well worded criticism and personal attacks.
B
Binny
Guest
Always bloody eye candy ISI = dx9, S397 = dx11. so graphics are better. problem is VR and GRAPHICS need to be optimized more often and S397 should not have a problem in doing that as they introduced them along with the new UI. Now if ppl want to lay blame with the rest of the sim its ISI issue, but we need to know if S397 can untangle the spaghetti. So this wonderful sim can go down the path that most ppl who bought when 1st released saw, can come to life and take this sim to the very top.
Ok so name a few.
juanchioooo
Registered
I have tried all the simulators and none reaches the height of rfactor, .... the pity is that it has many errors that should be fixed even if they continue to release content, as long as I can run races online and do not fall off the server, already happy with what we have ,if they fix the errors and release already wonderful content....I don't spend any more money on other simulators until I read that it is something superior to rfactor, everyone's opinions must be respected....regardless of what the CEO would do always what he wants with rfactor, not what people want... but to participate in leagues and championships I do relatively well
Dady Cairo
Registered
If any simulator coming out wich is superior than Rf2 to you,it's just in your mind,my friend.You have to read about it first..lol
to make up your mind?
Strange...
to make up your mind?Strange...
I asked for objective reasons why you think ACC is arcade vs rF2. Why do you think rf2 and AMS1 are superior sims.I have tried all the simulators and none reaches the height of rfactor, .... the pity is that it has many errors that should be fixed even if they continue to release content, as long as I can run races online and do not fall off the server, already happy with what we have ,if they fix the errors and release already wonderful content....I don't spend any more money on other simulators until I read that it is something superior to rfactor, everyone's opinions must be respected....regardless of what the CEO would do always what he wants with rfactor, not what people want... but to participate in leagues and championships I do relatively well
Nieubermesch
Registered
juanchioooo
Registered
When you try something, are you determined by the opinion of what others think? even if it's the majority! ......or by your own senses and what do you think? .... I have driven some racing cars and I have degrees of comparison and my opinion rules for me, .... I do not impose opinion on others although share it, ...... I do not pretend that others do what I say ... everyone has their opinion and criteria and should go where they prefer .... if for me AAC AMS2 RACEROOM AC IRACING or I find any other simulator DISAPPOINTING because of its FBB, ITS BEHAVIOR ON THE ROAD, it does not mean that everyone thinks the same or should think the same... I claim to fix rfactor 2 errors and more circuits basically, that's why I'm still here ...there are other people who want an IMPROVED AI,... THE CURIOUS THING IS that the AI imitates humans very badly, in other simulators even worse, but they require it here... because everyone says what they believe... something very different will be what the CEO will do and decide... it is what it is, hopes, deceptions and illusions
Stefan_L_01
Registered
If you want the AI to behave like human (go on dreaming) - why dont you start playing against humans?
Just think they are human like AI, and you are happy.
Oh well, sometimes you would still complain about non-human like stupid behaviour...
Just think they are human like AI, and you are happy.
Oh well, sometimes you would still complain about non-human like stupid behaviour...
Lazza
Registered
So you're saying get rid of AI?
(I'm joking. But taking things out of context seems to be a new sport)
Stefan_L_01
Registered
Yes why not? Its totally useless. Except for oval racing. Easy enough for some easy state based algos to work.
A realitic hardcore physic sim will not sell well enough to give back investment for developing superb grafix and other.
Again oval racing may be exception, easy enough for mass market even with realistic approach
davehenrie
Registered
I'm old enough to have used Nascar racing 1-5(or whatever the exact number was) Indy 500 for the Amiga & Indycar Racing 1 & 2 & GPL. All products from 'the other side' David Kaemer's Papyrus/Sierra/iRacing. Rarely was there a release from those oval centric series that didn't have complaints about the AI. If you can dig back far enough, you'll find posts by me telling the BBS users to learn the AI like you would a human. If the AI dive-bombs turn 3, then don't be there, run a groove higher. You may lose a spot, but you'll still be racing.
AI that behaves rationally, must be incredibly hard to create, but it is far easier than creating Human like AI. Rational AI does not get the red mist. Rational AI does not seek retaliation. Rational AI rarely try to overtake half the field by the first turn and on and on. Rational AI would probably be criticized as boring by many online users. User's want Human like AI, or at least they THINK they do.
Lazza
Registered
On a personal level I'm with you on AI - a few weeks racing (heck, practicing even) against real people killed AI-based games for me back in rF1.
But there's still some demand for it. iRacing wouldn't have developed AI otherwise.
And, graphics and 'other' (like AI) might help sales and further investment. We haven't had a realistic hardcore sim yet, rF2 included.
juanchioooo
Registered
Maybe it's because of the language or I didn't explain myself well, or are you confused... the AI? ... I only go into multiplayer
the other day I said: that the AI if it were up to me I would eliminate it, it is useless to me
obviously there are other people who don't think so, and if they want AI
green serpent
Registered
I find that despite a lot of annoying little issues (my pet peeve is the A.I going off track/having an incedent in exactly the same way in the same spot, sometimes in tandum) if you set the A.I strength at just the right spot to suit your pace, racing can be really fun.
The issue for me is that the A.I strength is wildly inconsistent. So for example with one car you can have the strength set at 115% and absoluely demolish the A.I, another car you have have it set at 98% and it's simply impossible to keep up. In my view, the AI strength must be EXAXCTLY right, not one percent too high or too low, and it takes quite a bit of testing to arrive at this number. Slightly too low and you'll be rear ending them on every corner entry, slightly too high and you need to overdrive the car hotlap style just to keep up, which is not fun or realistic.
The issue is that once I have painstakingly arrived at this number, by the time I get around to driving the car again I have forgotten what it was and need to repeat the process. I will probably make an epic spread sheet with every car and their strength (possibly even different strengths for different tracks), but it'd be good if you could somehow do it in game. At least some kind of section where you can keep notes or something for each mod (does that already exist)?
The issue for me is that the A.I strength is wildly inconsistent. So for example with one car you can have the strength set at 115% and absoluely demolish the A.I, another car you have have it set at 98% and it's simply impossible to keep up. In my view, the AI strength must be EXAXCTLY right, not one percent too high or too low, and it takes quite a bit of testing to arrive at this number. Slightly too low and you'll be rear ending them on every corner entry, slightly too high and you need to overdrive the car hotlap style just to keep up, which is not fun or realistic.
The issue is that once I have painstakingly arrived at this number, by the time I get around to driving the car again I have forgotten what it was and need to repeat the process. I will probably make an epic spread sheet with every car and their strength (possibly even different strengths for different tracks), but it'd be good if you could somehow do it in game. At least some kind of section where you can keep notes or something for each mod (does that already exist)?