PLEASE give us a real laser scanned version of the NORDSCHLEIFE !!!!!!

D

dadaboomda

Registered
NORDSCHLEIFE2 v2,01 is pretty good but it is not enough !

A simulation without a good NORDSCHLEIFE Will not seduce a lot of driving fans..........

What do you think about it ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Nordschleife we already have is better than every laserscanned version out there. There is a ls version somewhere but it's far away in terms of quality and look in my opinion. Cheers

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9301I mit Tapatalk
 
Hi,

Well, i meant a LEGAL LASER SCANNED NORDSCHLEIFE for this wonderfool simulation.

Personnally it doesn't matter a legal or not version but it has to be up to rfactor 2 (graphics, realism, feeling.....). I know i dream but if ISI change it mind about the creation of the nords, like the concurrent..... (asseto....), because i love rf2 !
 
This has indeed been discussed plenty of times already. Here's my personal view:

While I understand the appeal for this predominantly hotlap circuit (again, IMO), I can't see this happening. Licensing and data acquisition costs already put it outside rF2's planned purpose.

And then we're not even discussing production costs. Look at what we charge for 'online access' to cover the development of features for a reasonable amount of time and additional content which, to date, we have always released free of charge. It's not really 'free of charge' when we use the subscription revenue to cover further development, is it? Now compare that small subscription figure to the multitude of DLC packs being used to milk a much larger audience that is nowhere as demanding as our pleasant and precious hardcore, ultra-niche community :) .

On top of that, for a track that size, you'd want to double the Track Team size at least, equally doubling the production costs at least to keep progress within what you might consider to be a respectable time frame. At least.

Maybe we should start doing 1st party DLC? Definitely worth looking into ... but let's not discuss that here or now.

TL;DR: it would not be a very viable option.
 
Sure, if you want the track devs time (like over a year...) to be taken up making a recreation of the nords that is seen in every other sim going back a bunch of years...yeah...



"A simulation without a good NORDSCHLEIFE Will not seduce a lot of driving fans.........."

Yep, having a nords proper version might bring in new people. But I see it that it currently attracts a different kind of simracer, one who is inclined to "go against the norm" a little bit. I don't mean hipster, I mean more like "I would rather not have another virtual version of Spa/Nords with modern GT3 cars, I already have that countless times over in the other sims I own". That's why I welcome seeing the Dissenter Transam car and a nicely recreated version of Toban recently. Also why I enjoyed Kunos with their JDM pack recently, stuff I haven't seen much in sim racing.

And again, if ISI said tomorrow they were doing Nords, its not to say I would then hate rF2. Just that the way they have carried themselves over the years is what some admire here and the way they continue to do so, and not to bow to the "norms" some people see.
That brings the cries of ISI's doom and that they are dieing, but I am pretty confident that bloody 20 years on they have a grip on how to run their company and their work ethic...so I roll my eyes and continue to enjoy the software and wait for the "community's" next collective freakout.
 
dadaboomda said:
NORDSCHLEIFE2 v2,01 is pretty good but it is not enough !

A simulation without a good NORDSCHLEIFE Will not seduce a lot of driving fans..........

What do you think about it ?
Click to expand...
You asked so I will tell you what I think.

We have a very good version of the Nordschliefe. I personally entered a team in a 24 hour race there this year.
It was AWESOME.
Would have the knowledge that it was an inch perfect recreation using laser scanning made it any more immersive or challenging for me? .. NO.

There is a thing called the law of diminishing returns. We have a great one for for free due to the amazing committment and work done by its creators. The question is, what benefit do we get from a laser scanned version? Especially if you don't frequent the real life track.

In my opinion the immersion is driven by the depth and authenticity of the physics and tyre model, the FFB. Real world temps. Stuff like that.
Putting a photo realistic version of the track in front of me (esp considering that 1/2 the laps are at night BTW) doesn't by comparison do much for me.

So people who want to see that can drive it in inferior sims that have a (potentially) superior? version of the track.

For me it might add 2% to the immersion. So for the sacrifices / costs / work involved I say not worth it at all.
Very happy with what we have got.
Just my views thats all.
 
I understand the arguments of ISI and I respect them of course.

But I think it would have been SMART although it would have been long, cumbersome and expensive.

ACCORDING TO ME because:

- If there is one circuit that almost unanimously by the automobile driving enthusiasts, it is this one more than any other
- This is the circuit that is generally reputed to be the most difficult and dangerous in the world, so for the best simulation world, YES it seems to me logical to implement this circuit
- The longest circuit in size and in addition the more so varied the most interesting technically (170 turns in 24H configuration ...)
- Unquestionably the reference circuit to develop or test sports cars
- The reference circuit to verify the performance of the best cars in the world and set records
- A circuit or immersion is among the world's best (drill ...)
- One of the most historic circuits including fans and this is important
- The circuit that most or dream and there is more passion
- And I could go on well

I respect your choice of course, but nevertheless it seems to me a strategic mistake, it's just my impression not a value judgment.

I also want to say that I find your work on rfactor 2 absolutely beautiful, you have my congratulations. Like you, I want you to run your competitors stung !!!

So ok no problem, I note that there will be no nordschleife ISI except perhaps in a long time.

NOTE: the number of subjects on this circuit goes in the direction of what I say, there is a real expectation of your customers
 
Never been there - probably never going to be there. I couldn't tell you if there is something not right with any version that has been released and I don't suspect I am in the minority.......
 
All is well when you don't know what is wrong with the version we have, (I don't really) as I'm not a big fan of the track. However, when you have driven the laser scanned for some time, well... As an infamous thug once said, '..there ain't no coming back' ;)


Also, not trying to meddle, but trying to understand. Lots of people come to rF2 for the most realism for the buck. Generally the community is picky as heck when it comes to just about everything. But with this track I suddenly see some excuses pop up which seem to me only used to justify choices for crappy games and their mistakes... 'I've never been there', 'haven't driven the car, so how could I know if it's supposed to drive like this', '*we don't need laserscanning for a photorealistic track'... What is up with these? Sure I too believe we have some of the best cars and tracks out there, but that doesn't mean when something is factually better, excuses have to be made to kind of let it slide and suddenly we don't need the best because we seemingly can judge if it is so. Seems like a weird way of reasoning suddenly, when for every other car or track every pixel is weighed and measured...

*If you think laserscanning is responsible for a photorealistic track, you haven't the slightest clue what laserscanning does for you sir, sorry to say
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For ISI, make this track would require too much time and money, okay.

So unlike other simulations, do not expect a scanned laser version (damage ...).

But there is an advantageous partial solution for everyone : Beneficial to users of Rfactor 2 (customers) and ISI rewarding and I guess for DJC, Tosch, Pleclair.

Can be from very good version "v2.01 NORDSCHLEIFE2" to do with the help and resources of ISI really a track "perfect" (I put quotes ""). It would be a smart investment by ISI but not too applicant time and money.

Of course with the approval of Pleclair, Tosch, DJC.

I say and repeat, this track is really like no other for automobile driving enthusiasts.

On a poll on this forum, 64% of respondents are even willing to pay for a scanned laser Version!

I have given my arguments and I have not much to add. I respect the opinions of everyone.

Note: have the best physics and FFB is great but having to accompany "the mother of all tracks" version finesse in terms of realism and feel is better .... and to my mind it is strategic.
 
Adjusting that old track based on what, guesswork? That is the problem it suffers in the first place, not based on proper data, if some modders can't even get a topdown layout right, you can bet every elevation change will be off by quite a margin as well. Money and time down the drain if you ask me. It's just more guesswork them in terms of elevation, all the layout errors can be fixed surely, but people generally can't even tell without having driven the laserscanned versions. People are apparently pleased with this version, why would ISI bother making this track 'perfect'? I think they should either do it well, or steer clear of it.

Make no mistake, how much is 64% of the community really? 500 people? Who will pay, what, 10 dollars? That isn't even enough for 3 months of labor, mind you, this doesn't include the source data!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi,

I respect your opinion but just to inform you :

I do not know about the irregularities of the track (nevertheless essential to the feelings and sensations and realism).
***But I am for years passionate by this track and has rolled over twice and has especially looked hundreds of hours of on-boar camera. I SAY TO YOU 100% that many turns are unfortunately fake ....

As you say you even you do not know the trak well;).

My arguments being said I'm not going to argue. Everyone is entitled to his opinion.

My warning role stops there (strategy to compete).

Good luck and thank you to ISI.
 
I acknowledge the problems, as I have seen peclair post about them when he was working on the track. The point I was making, the mistakes in the track are result of guesswork because no proper data was used to construct it (otherwise the problems wouldn't have excisted in the first place). Trying to fix those issues using more guesswork, especially with elevation, might get you into more problems than there already are and you will have no exact way of validating to see if the track is the better for it other than, you guessed it, more guesswork and opinions.

I'm just seeing where ISI's stance on this subject originates from. And at the same time questioning some users' double standards or exceptions
when it comes to this track, whats so special about it then?
 
Just to end my remarks on this subject:

I wish however to thank thousand times Pleclair, Tosch, DJC because despite what I say their version is extremely pleasant.

I am sincerely grateful to them ... I accumulate about 10,000 kilometers on their version Rfactor 2 !!! (Tourist, vln, 24). They are undoubtedly extremely talented I think.

What I will never remove the kindness that I have for them.
 
That's great you are passionate about the track, and about wanting it in rF2, however what we each see as important is of not much concern to ISI, apart from very broad ideas obviously.

I would love to see some very early racing cars simulated, what a hoot it would be to have a real well done type 35 bugatti in a sim. But it does me no good to lament online about how the devs should really pursue this, how it would be another highly unusual but historic race car to have in a sim, might have some new-old technology that hasn't been simulated yet, etc.

Contrary to what many sites seem to suggest, none of the devs are obliged to do anything for us specifically. Seems like just because a bunch of people hold an opinion on something AND have bought the product, that the devs should follow that viewpoint.
Funny that if those people don't see the rapid reaction from the devs to their ideas, they can then label it as dieing, and about to go under...

I'm no businessman, but the only time it seems you can really do that sort of thing is if you have some kind of stake in a company. If I had invested a bunch of money with ISI and had managed to wrangle into internal discussions personally...to give my influence and see a return...
Which thankfully, ISI have said they aren't beholden to that kind of carry-on :)
 
With regards to V2.01, I believe there isn't really much more that ISI or anyone else can do, it's graphically almost as good as it gets. Moving the mesh to somehow make a better fit with the real track is more or less impossible task, it will just create a big mess. It would be easier to start from scratch with good reference data than doing some half-hearted attempted at making the modded track align with the real track when it clearly doesn't. The only thing that I think could perhaps be improved is the road bumpiness, some of the open wheelers with stiff suspension do struggle a lot in a few corners.
 
I've driven around the real Nordschleife several times and tried both, the v2.01 and a laser scanned one, ported to rF. Not sure, might have been AC.

Anyway, the laser scanned one was (ironically) more inaccurate driving-wise, less fun and looked (excuse the bad word) crap compared to v2.01. Seriously, the guys who ported the old rF1 track to rF2 did such an awesome job, even at enhancing the GP track, that I'd personally wish they'd include a GP layout too. But even the Nordschleife is far more detailed and accurate-looking than the laser scanned one compared to real-life.

I have to admit, v2.01 has some minor inaccuracies at some parts of the track, but those really don't matter and the laser scanned one, as I have said above, feels more inaccurate anyway (and doesn't even come with a GP layout, so no 24hr races). Really, the v2.01 is one of the most awesome community-created mods for any racing sim ever and I'm glad that it exists.

So I don't really get why ISI should waste months of time to create a quite similar version of the track? Why would accuracy even matter that much? It's not like we were using the track to hardcore-practice for a real 24hr race, right?

My two cents
 
Why would we want accurate vehicle dynamics and physics and the most realistic sim on the market in the first place? It's not like we were using the sim to hardcore-practice for a real 24hr race, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top