Remove rFmod Petition

K Szczech said:
ModID's generated on the fly by server would solve these problems and it was mentioned by ISI staff that it may be implemented.

An alternative would be to bring ModID's one level down and instead of one ModID, server would send a list of required packages (ID's for cars and tracks).
Click to expand...

Both items I suggested in other threads and this one :)

And by the way...if you looK i would suggest a vast majority of posters here (including me) have not suggested remove it...not voted for it...but do want improvement.

However the other threads where I made these points where pretty much ignored and the same topics are raised again here.

I think EVERYONE needs to go through the PDF and actually attempt the packaging process to understand more about it. Dont rely on someone else to learn it and supply you with what you need.
 
Slothman said:
I think EVERYONE needs to go through the PDF and actually attempt the packaging process to understand more about it. Dont rely on someone else to learn it and supply you with what you need.
Click to expand...


I tried it a few times and failed miserably! LOL! Anytime you're given a new way of doing things, it's always going to be hard to grasp. Especially since we're all used to doings things the "old" way. I'm not ready to chuck, or vote to chuck, the ModID system. It can be a good thing. But in its current state, it's a no go for me. I'll wait to see how it develops before I decide one way or the other.

I do like the idea of separate ID's for mod and track, though. It makes good sense.
 
Agreed Brabham...

I wouldnt mind ISI giving us a "final destination" as to the final plans for the system. That would go a long way to alleviate the frustration.

Scott has mentioned its only the base.....fine, but if we are testing the base you dont go chaning the base later on.

At first I was happy with that response, until I tried doing a few more things....

I am going to test some ideas and things tonight. If they do what I expect....it could be fun :)
 
Slothman said:
see how easy it is to create multiple MODID's that contain the same data...I can even name them the same at this point.

So I can have Sloth Mod and Sloth Mod and have them COMPLETELY differnet...already done it.

So now you tell me which one to download?? (dont panic I never posted them, I just tried it).
Click to expand...

Thats a very interesting problem youve discovered and something i didnt think of..(obviously im not as evil as you lol)

but if someone was to be nasty and pack something in an rFmod that they shouldnt you wouldnt actually know until AFTER youve installed it and its to late...hmmmm :(
 
You talking viruses there Jim?? That one I havnt tested yet ....I suppose it MIGHT be possible...but I havt tested that theory with MAS files yet as everything is now in them....

See the whole Submit ID has 2 possibilities.

- SUBMIT ID stops people creating multiple versions of EXACTLY the same content (is done when it generates the checksum off of the components included). This is great because it means we only have one MODID floating around so if you have it, and I have it, its awesome. BUT it also means if someone creates the mod and DOESNT release it...we are all stuffed. ie I wait till Putnam comes out, QUICKLY generate a MODID using the Meganes and this track with ALL other tracks, it locks mine down...I keep it to myself...we are all stuffed.

- SUBMIT ID allows people to create the same versions. This is good as it fixes the above situation, but than opens up the floodgates to 10+, 20+, 30+ of the SAME mod doing the same thing...pretty much your example. Even if it stops the SAME name.... SL0TH M0D looks close to SLOTH MOD and when not side by side...hard to spot the difference :)

I am sure ISI will sort the issue...but in its current state....oh yeh baby...I can be evil.

Not saying I would, but I know there are people out there who would do it just for a laugh. I am going to test some theories tonight...if your around I might get you to help me test them :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alrighty guys...

Me and a mate did some testing tonight and here is what we discovered.

1) An individual CANNOT create the same content virtual mod with the same name using different MODID.....good.

2) 2 Different accounts CAN create the same content virtual mod with the same name using different MODID......bad.....potentially.

What does this mean....

If a vMOD is released by someone and call it MOD1.

The contents of this MOD1 is X Track and Y Car. They release it and all is good.

I come along and I want to make rF2 hell for people.

I go and create the same MOD call it MOD1 include X Track and Y Car. I release it and here is where the fun starts.

If we both call it the SAME file name for the rfmod think about the issues.

ISSUE 1 - You copy the file into your packages folder and it replaces the file.....nothing major there, contents the same etc etc...will stall call poroblems for the unitiated but not as bad as the next issue.

ISSUE 2 - I circulate the second mod (differnt MODID) under the guise its the same as the first mod. Mr Gamer gets mine and installs it. He tries to join a server with my circualted mod and it goes "computer says no". From there he gets hold of the Server admin (somehow) and the admin says you need this mod and file. This poor guy goes...yeh I have that. After a bit of stuffing they check the properties of the mod by right clicking on the mod in the MOD INSTALLER. The ONLY information that will look different is the MODID.

Confusion city.

Just though I would post this little gem for you to mull over.

A fix you say...well...one way would be to limit the production of the MODID to MOD NAME as well....but bollox I cry. The name of the Mod in the MOD INSTALLER is taken from the rFM....so again...it still looks the same.

Not sure on what ISI have in store for that one :)
 
Mauro said:
+1

a simple solution is a double id check in the servers:

-MODID
-TRACKID

in this way tracks and cars can be indipendent.
it will be the best solution.
Click to expand...
+1 here, a ModId shall not be linked to a track, and this will resolved main problems.
 
Thanks for keeping the discussion mature and logical, folks. We appreciate it, and all the comments and issues you're presenting. Again, the mod system in its base state was a LARGE reason for the beta release--to see what works and what doesn't. We are listening...
 
Scott...yeh I kind of figured it was a pretty large reason for the BETA :)

The above is not trying to be a sod about it all, but honestly it is a bit of a doubel dip to rF1.

At the moment in its current state it doesnt do anything for the creation of minimising mismatches....in fact it kind of makes it worse and now, you cant join a server because ti wont let you. At least before you could join and someone on the server woudl say...Visit this site and download this mod...etc etc.

I am hoping ISI can give us some kind of overal aim with the MODID system just to give us some hope :)

The one thing I never tested....was with the 2 mods my mate and I created as to whether one would let you joing the server when the other one was installed....I would have to test that tomorrow night.
 
My complains are about the exclusion of tracks with a mod:

currently to make all existing tracks available you have to include them as a list in the .rfm:
TrackList
{
Layout = Joesville Runabout
Layout = Full Loop
Layout = North Loop
Layout = Inner Loop C
Layout = Outer Loop B
Layout = 1966 Monte Carlo
Layout = GT Layout minus tire stacks
Layout = GT Layout
}

If a new track appears, someone has to create a (new/virtual) Mod with the new track added into the tracklist. This may lead to an inflation of MODs and it will be difficult to get the correct MOD, because we dont have a centralized database.

Is there a wildcard for ANY track?

The ISI ALL CARS AND TRACKS MOD has a simple "Tracklist" without any arguments - so all tracks are apearing - , but this is alerted by the Packager as a failure.
 
Hey Gaucho...

The rfm tracklist actually has nothing to do with what tracks are available....it all comes down to the virtual mod....

Its kind of what most of this thread has been about.
 
Slothman said:
Alrighty guys...

Me and a mate did some testing tonight and here is what we discovered.
H
1) An individual CANNOT create the same content virtual mod with the same name using different MODID.....good.

2) 2 Different accounts CAN create the same content virtual mod with the same name using different MODID......bad.....potentially.

What does this mean....

If a vMOD is released by someone and call it MOD1.

The contents of this MOD1 is X Track and Y Car. They release it and all is good.

I come along and I want to make rF2 hell for people.

I go and create the same MOD call it MOD1 include X Track and Y Car. I release it and here is where the fun starts.

If we both call it the SAME file name for the rfmod think about the issues.

ISSUE 1 - You copy the file into your packages folder and it replaces the file.....nothing major there, contents the same etc etc...will stall call poroblems for the unitiated but not as bad as the next issue.

ISSUE 2 - I circulate the second mod (differnt MODID) under the guise its the same as the first mod. Mr Gamer gets mine and installs it. He tries to join a server with my circualted mod and it goes "computer says no". From there he gets hold of the Server admin (somehow) and the admin says you need this mod and file. This poor guy goes...yeh I have that. After a bit of stuffing they check the properties of the mod by right clicking on the mod in the MOD INSTALLER. The ONLY information that will look different is the MODID.

Confusion city.

Just though I would post this little gem for you to mull over.

A fix you say...well...one way would be to limit the production of the MODID to MOD NAME as well....but bollox I cry. The name of the Mod in the MOD INSTALLER is taken from the rFM....so again...it still looks the same.

Not sure on what ISI have in store for that one :)
Click to expand...

That's where i think the idea of a central database would come in. I don't think we can stop people trying to mess with modIDs, what we can do is make easier for legit racers to access. New track comes out, u pop on over to c if there's a Vmod already out there. If there is u download it, if not and u feel up to it you make one and post it. The whole thing would b searchable by track or mod. It should prevent copies and it should make it easier to find the various Vmods. As long as the community would embrace the idea it could work.
 
It’s good to see some interest in the system.

My guess is the majority of the people here are pretty good at finding and installing mods, if not actually creating them as well. I can see why you may feel that mismatches where not much of an impediment to your enjoyment of rF1. For many people however, it was.

The ModID system as it stands is primary intended to test and address complete mods. Most people outside of the core community are introduced to rFactor through complete mods either from a league or fan site. Getting this part solid is important to us right now. It will create the system onto which additional features can be added, including adding IDs to components and eventually automating the entire process.

Packages can be large and people can repackage the same components over and over again. But this doesn’t have to happen. I think the community will reward wisely packaged mods and leave the poor ones to wither. Uninstalling mods and removing packages is much more straight forward than in the past.

Creating a ModID can fast and easy. I think of it the same way as creating an invitation telling people what you plan to race and where to get it. The use of virtual mods means they can be small and even treated as attachments. Over time the ModID can be enhanced to include update and download links, league restrictions, race schedules and a host of other things.

The system does allow for car skins to be added without affecting the ModIDs and over time we’ll add the infrastructure for other non critical pieces, like sounds and cameras. Right now we on the foundation stage.

DevMode still allows you to make quick real-time changes without the need for packages, basically rF1. Single player along with All Tracks/All Cars allows you to try and car on any track. For those teams that develop mods, the system already allows for you to test in a controlled but open fashion without having to update the packages or change ModIDs.

This system is new, a bit awkward when first encountered, but does not prevent you from doing anything that rF1 did. Personally my hope is you do some things much differently. This system is designed to allow us to find, install, update and schedule races in a more organized manner while at the same time giving mod makers more control over their mods.
 
I have to disagree. Wading through my computer to go to /user/admin/my documents/rFactor2/packages every time a new mod needs to be installed is a big pain and most novices who dont know their way around a computer will have a hard time to install the mods. Why not make it so that the rfmod files can be dropped on desktop or have the packages folder moved to the rFactor 2 install folder which would make things easier?
 
I have so far found the new packaging system to be the biggest pain in the butt and most restrictive part of rF2 so far, the biggest draw for myself (and I'm sure many others) is that you could tailor rF1 to exactly how you liked it, so far rF2 seems to be a huge backward step in that direction, so much so that I probably won't be modding for rF2 if it stays the same.
 
steve30x said:
I have to disagree. Wading through my computer to go to /user/admin/my documents/rFactor2/packages every time a new mod needs to be installed is a big pain and most novices who dont know their way around a computer will have a hard time to install the mods. Why not make it so that the rfmod files can be dropped on desktop or have the packages folder moved to the rFactor 2 install folder which would make things easier?
Click to expand...
Getting the package into the packages folder could be made easier, like by putting a shortcut on the desktop, but I suspect there will be more clever ways created by the content creators.
 
lasercutter said:
I have so far found the new packaging system to be the biggest pain in the butt and most restrictive part of rF2 so far, the biggest draw for myself (and I'm sure many others) is that you could tailor rF1 to exactly how you liked it, so far rF2 seems to be a huge backward step in that direction, so much so that I probably won't be modding for rF2 if it stays the same.
Click to expand...
Being one of the more prolific modders from rF1, I can see how adding any extra structure could be frustrating. If however you decide to stick around, send me your notes on what pieces are causing the biggest problems and we'll see if it can be streamlined.
 
Gjon, I'm not sure you have grasped our (hopefully constructive) criticism. I get the advantage for "complete mods" as it stands right now and it's why I wouldn't drop the possibility of packaging both tracks and cars into a mod entirely.

Maybe I just missed that part of the rF1 community, but in my experience those complete mods are not how mods are primarily distributed or produced. Cars and tracks are done separately by different people. How many series mods had specifically made trackpacks? I only remember the recently released 1994 mod that added a trackpack a bit after the initial release.

As a modder exclusively producing tracks, I am afraid my tracks will not be driven if I don't find mod creators to include my track in their mod. If you download the Enduracer's mod and it doesn't include my track, you will have to go the extra step to select them through AllCarsAllTracks for single player or create your own .rfmod and distribute that specifically to whoever I want to run with. If as you posit we here are the more adept group of racers how will those cope with that who aren't as adept? Do we end up with beautiful tracks that end up getting raced less because we're asking too much of the normal users? That is my fear and I'm not sure if I'm willing to produce tracks if that's where we end up.

On a point of logic: The current system clearly prevents us from hosting or joining an online session that combines (installed) car(s) and track(s) that are not pre-defined in a .rfmod file distributed between participants beforehand, which rF1 allowed us to do. :)

Could you perhaps be more specific in how you think we modders should do things differently?
I hope you didn't mean that "mere" packagers should become the new community stars and that track creators should start sucking up to car modders to get their tracks into mods. ;)
 
Gjon Camaj said:
Getting the package into the packages folder could be made easier, like by putting a shortcut on the desktop, but I suspect there will be more clever ways created by the content creators.
Click to expand...
As I said the novice computer users wont think of such things as that. It should be made easier. Just because you guys are programmers and know your way around computers like myself it doesnt mean everybody else is. Maybe in the mod installer you should give an option to select the folder which the rfmod file is? Then have the mod installer transfer the file to the packages folder and inform the user where the file was transfered to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top