Remove rFmod Petition

Jim Beam, you're right. But ISI (Gjon) aim to sell his product, right?
People usually don't like to buy broken products, right?

 

theres a right way and a wrong way to go about things mate

 

Hi Quasi yes i know the difference and my biggest dissapointment in giving all the help ive tried to give, is the ones that gave up and put it in the too hard basket,otherwise there would be alot more people racing.

Theres three groups of people that this game has to cater for,the modders the gamers and the league runners and admin.

Getting that ballance is going to be hard at the end of the day

 

Yes? And do you think Gjon or Tim have chosen good way? Tracking their way of communication, some times I doubt.
You are right - rf2 is their product. But they did it not for them self. They did it for some target - I believe for simracing community, we are one. So, we have rights to write about disappointments, or judge even ISI CEO behaviour. Or maybe it is prohibited?
We can do that on this forum or another one - I think better choice is to give some feedback here.

I must agree with DeM comment. Maybe harsh but true.

 

I certainly hope you don't think I was referring to Gjon, because I wasn't, and I don't think bagging out ISI is either warranted, or desirable. All most of us are trying to do is present a case to Gjon for making a change to the MODID system, as it severly limits the useability of RF2.

 

MaXyM ...so you think its ok to call anyone insulting names on a forum?....hmmm

 

No, it is not OK. But some times it is hard to find better words.

BTW On this forum you may get reputation status lower even for polite arguing. So what a difference.

 

Ban?

 

Been waiting for it....some people just dont learn...

 

Illiterate NO.

Lazy...absolutely.

One thing to remember here guys....its the LEAGUE admins that do most of the work helping the new and illiterate PC users....if they dont like the system...no matter how many MODs are out there, you still will need people to organise them...regardless of the system.

IN ITS CURRENT STATE...and I will keep saying that as I am HOPING beyond all hope this is nothing like the final build...most Admins will not put too much time into rF2.....

 

What exactly MaXyM said to ban him?

 

Guys, dont involve me in this high noon duel between few of you who look unable to talk in a polite and costructive manner and every other reader.

Ban might be the difference between polite arguing and personal insults.

Hard to understand?


[Next possible quote] What exatly is hard to understand?[/Next possible quote]

.......

 

LOL, ban him. And me, you will probably find something on me.

 

I am happy to see you understood what i meant!

 

Let me explain better ... this is very important topic, where devs and community talk together about a strategic implementation of rF2.
The very most of the posters are discussing in a costructive and clean manner, but when i read

i think someone is exaggerating with the words.

 

I think somewhat chose the entirely wrong way to express their frustration with someone else either ignoring their concerns or replying with "everything will sort itself out" with no apparent logical reason or way for that to happen.

 

Reason for edit:

Note to self...stop asking stupid questions when ya drunk

 

Back in topic:

I think that a "middle way" is the best:

We should focus on the .rfcmp and give them a unique ID. Then for online gaming the server .rfmod ID should just be a "set" of .rfcmp IDs. Something like a file containing info about which .rfcmp is used (with its IDs). This should keep .rfmod dimensions low (some KB) and "downloadable" when joining a server.

When something is missing, an error should pop up and telling the gamer that he misses one or more .rfcmp components and tell him the IDs so he can look for them.

I don't think this is hard to do, and should keep things simple. What about it?

 

That has been suggested in various forms but I haven't seen anything else but a not very placating "it's an option"...

I don't understand what benefit of the current implementation would be lost when moving the IDs to the component level.

 

ethone ,wouldnt that make it easier to individualise the content needed to download instead of packs