Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by skyh, Jan 4, 2015.
lol, that's funny.
And the (maybe) greater joke on this is that they regulary change the lighting/HDR, so that tracks that are made for the actual (wrong) HDR
(and may look good now because the modder took this into account) look bad later when they change the HDR once again.
Then the modder have to rework the track, what he most probably won´t, so that we end up with a bunch of bad looking tracks!
Having taken a 3 year sabbatical from rFactor and recently returning it appears that the rF community has withered away. While some of the features in rF2 are pretty cool, it looks like the challenge of building mods has raised exponentially. I am familiar with what it takes to create mods for rF1, but after some intense scouring for instructions on rF2 it almost seems like one has to be among a secret society. No thanks. The trouble is for those teams who provided brilliant work in rF1 seem to have just walked away from rF2 as well.
rFactor is an exceptional sim. But the ability to create and plug in mods open a huge horizon, which seems to be missing. Documentation is sparse and somewhat incoherent.
As far as the visual realism there have been improvements, but no sim, not even the NASA Flight Simulators look entirely real. ISI has done a pretty good job, with a tiny fraction of resources compared to some of the high end government funded simulators.
The visual improvements over rF1 are obvious, but certainly not worth the lack of mods IMO.
I agree with you on most things you say, but I miss something in your post.
When driving good cars on good tracks RF2 is better and more challenging than RF1 (ex: ISI C6R at Mid Ohio). Historical content is second to none in my experience (try BT20 with manual gears).
The AI can be very good on some tracks, real road makes racing very interesting (if you try to overbrake an opponent with two wheels on the rubbered side and the two others on a more slippery track, it requires some fine braking control), that is why we are still there waiting for new builds.
Well obviously they should keep improving the product, there are some aspects wrong with HDR/lighting and I'm glad that some were fixed in the December build, for example trees are no longer pitch dark when they are facing opposite to sun. Then again if modder had already chosen light trees to compensate for the old effect, now they will look a bit silly, so yes, it's a double-edged sword. Problem with maintaining "constantly developing" platform, which relies on mods that need to be updated.
Exactly my thoughts when I first saw Lime Rock Park 2.0.
Yes, for sure they should keep improving the product! BUT:
If you want modders to jump on, there should be some importend things done right, from the beginning, that in the best case never change (or have to change)!!
And that is not the case in rF2. So noone should wonder why modding is (and stays) at minimum-level.
If modders are making their decision of what game to mod by basing that decision on graphics rather than physics & FFB, then that makes those modders no different to a player who chooses which sim to drive based on graphics rather than physics & FFB.
Basically, that proves that those modders are just interested in "painting pretty pictures" and therefore have nothing to do with actual racing.
It's like going to a track and seeing two different drivers:
A guy who is more concerned about how shiney his wheels look, how brightly his neon-colored pinstripes look, and how many fake-sponsor stickers he can stick on his car. He is also obsessed with taking pictures of his car from all sorts of angles, and is thinking of making some lame, "trying-too-hard", overly dramatic video of his car w/ overly dramatic music and some overly dramatic (not to mention, boring underwhelming) slow motion sequences, as if his car is the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ.
This guy clearly knows "what's up". He's at the track, thinking and talking about car feel, car setup, ways to gain a tenth or two at a particular corner. You see him standing lost in his own wolrd as he's thinking deeply about what his car us doing and his own driving. You constantly see him checking and comparing his sector times to others. Where, and why, he's gaining or loosing time. He's hired his own personal group of engineers and mechanics who custom-design parts and entire cars for him. He's gone through about 5 different front-suspension design configurations as he just can't get the front of the car to do, and feel, what he wants.
Two completely different mentalities. Driver B is a true racing lover with a true racing driver/engineer/designer mentality and interest, while driver A is just another typical guy car-lover (which most guys claim to be), who just wants the "coolest", most attention-grabbing, and popular car around. He wants everyone to see how "awesome" he is.
Bssically one is true racer which is what simracing video games are marketed to and actually supposed to be all about, and the otther is just some moron who "loves" cars.
So anyone who does not get the technical side of cars or has no interest in it is a moron? News flash; people can like cars/hobbies however they should choose to like it, certainly does not make them a moron.
I'm personally a massive fan of rF2, have been for the whole franchise and it would be great to see more modders support it however those that don't it's their choice for their reasons (and this "elitist" mentality which unfortunately does come across from many here really does not help). I've the up most respect for anyone who picks up the tools to make anything for ANY product even if id love to see it on platforms i drive more.
There is far to much crying about modders supporting other platforms and not enough soaking up the tears and having a go yourself. There is 1001 tutorials online on how to make car models, not quite so many on tracks but they are there with many answers to questions here in the forums with a few searches. Sure making car mods is a little more difficult than rF1, but really it's only the tires that's a whole new level, the rest - model the car, texture the car, export the car, setup files is nearly the same process. As for tracks, again the basics are the same just now you can use the texture stage to add more "ability's" to the track (realroad, wet etc). But in essence the process/skillset is the same.
There is many people here i've seen more than happy to help others out, the biggest problem for many is just asking for that help. It's easier to give up and say it's too hard.
All that aside, i'd like to think ISI could help drive modding, releasing updated tools, maybe more guides/docs for newcomers wanting to try it as many of the docs assume you already have your foot in the door in modeling etc. Allowing one guy in the office for 1/2 hours a month to document something they do could make the world of difference to give people the drive to have a go.
I think number one criterion for general modder interest is how popular platform is, not graphics. Of course better graphics tend to increase popularity of sim, so there is an indirect effect.
Modding tracks hasn't changed that much in rF2, modding cars have. Yes the chassis and aero is pretty much from rF1, but working with physical tire model adds thats that much effort, unless you go cheap way and use some model tires by ISI, but that's not very genuine modding. I have impression that very few modders if any understand how to build tires for rF2 from scratch, all data is not even available for doing that. A mathematical tire model as in Assetto Corsa is much easier to operate with than constructing your own rubber from scratch. Well, off topic this went again...
No, RJames, the modder wouldn't be a moron, but "Driver A" that I described in my post definitely is, and, not to mention, has his ego way up his bum.
And you have shown how clueless you are regarding modding in general. I'm going to paste you what I replied you few days ago, which is actually the third time in fact, so as usual I don't really expect you to reply, but here we go:
Driver B is not allowed to enjoy some decent graphics and performance. That's just for the fake racing lover with a fake racing driver/engineer/designer mentality. So he better stays out of rF2.
I say that rF2 physics are more realistic then other sims.
How do you know it's not, based on facts I mean.
I think what Spin meant is the mentality of "some" that drive say AC and projectCARS.
You only have to look at skin sites and the endless array of skins and the huge download numbers to know that.
Where as here the Post yours Skins thread is a month old
It is not a swipe at them so don't suggest it is........ just facts imo.
You know I was being sarcastic right ?
They are both antiquated.
I have download 800+ rF2 skins without lifting a single finger.
Based on facts, you can say that rF2 physics engine is more complex than others (rF1 based sims, AC, etc). But that is not my point; every physics engine needs to read some data introduced by de devs in every car; so if there is lack of data (which is something that all devs have to face at some point, sometimes more, sometimes less) and the data used is wrong, or not very accurate (let's use the IndyCar as example, admited by ISI), the complexity of the physics engine is secondary.
A good looking track is important to me. I hate rfactor converts with low poly count, it's distracting even if the ffb and physics are good I'm not into it. Now about the modding, well I justa have to say I have very few mods installed, and that is because I think unlike rfactor 1, the official ISI content is brilliant.
Good looking has as good as nothing to do with polycount.
More textures, materials and so on.
Are you sure?
Separate names with a comma.