seriously? ISI this needs to be re-thought.

And at some point it will be, you can't get it all at the getgo in a never finished product, jump on the horse when it suits your need :)
 
Ronin Hammer said:
What i mean Noel is that i havent forgot the issues people had with rF1, all i know is that there was no magic involved to keeping my rF1 install free from problems by just keeping it tidy and organized. and adding what ports to be open in the mp.ini isn't exactly revolutionizing even tho it's sweet.

A simple google search revealed what the latest version was for both cars mods and tracks. What im trying to say is that most of the issues people had with rF1 was more down to the users than the actual game in many cases.

I dont want to eliminate the need to create a Vmod, i just want it to be implemented in a user-friendly way in the GUI, i mean we have the launcher, with the offline-racing kept in one section and the online racing kept in another, why on earth isn't the packaging-functions neatly implemented in the ingame UI when choosing online from the launcher?

having the option to host a dedicated server from outside the game ofcours needs to stay but it cant be the only way to host a simple race with a friend.

How can you say it's identical when you cant even host a race from ingame anymore? im confused..
Click to expand...

Keeping organized wasn't all there was to it. One mod that had messed up SearchParhs in the GEN file could cause conflicts later down the road and most people didn't know enough about the inter working of a mod to know why two mods were conflicting. This is why individual installs for every mod became the norm. This is why RFC made the rFLite installer.

My point about opening ports is that the old MP.ini didn't list all the needed ports. People were always confused about what ports needed to be opened. In rF2 this has been narrowed down to two ports and both are listed in the mp.ini.

Finding updated cars and tracks wasn't a simple Google. There were so many variations of cars and tracks it was ridiculous. This is why as a league admin I just built custom installers for everything my members needed and hosted them on our site so you didn't constantly have people saying "does anyone have a working link for this track". I seriously think you're forgetting the mess it was.

TBH I totally forgot about the ability to host right inside the game in rF1. I don't think I have hosted a race that way for 8 years or so.

I agree there needs to be a cleaner interface for creating vmods. The tool could at least have a link from the Launcher or maybe the installer could create a shortcut to mas2 and even a link to the help file (which btw full documents how to make a vmod).

So it sounds like vmod creation is your main problem. So if this could be automated you would be happy. We should see this in the future but I seriously doubt hosting will ever be allowed in game.

My main complaint right now is that you need to have every track in a vmod to be able to join a server rather than just the one for the current session. But I think this problem is on the radar too. This isn't really a problem for leagues though because we just host one track a week or month it what ever the schedule is.
 
oh well what i think or not, and my experiences with rF1 is just a drop in the ocean and usually i dont make a fuzz about things, im used to editing pretty much every textfile available to get rF and rF2 to run to my liking, i dont mind it, i like digging around and customizing.

i just wanted to lift a notion that when one cant learn how to host a race by just looking at the interface and at least get a halfassed idea of what the hell to do, something needs to be done

i want what's best for rF 2 and as i said a couple posts back, it's so frickin fantastic but the reason we buy rFactor and not pcars or AC is the online-experience since rF never really has been about AI.. included in that experience is the ease of hosting a race with a couple friends.

Especially the ISI content! shouldn't need a rfmod file for those.. there's no missmatches to be had!

so im not flaming and leaving, im frustrated in the caring parent-kind of way hehe "cant you see im angry cuz i love you?"

Noel, no hard feelings, i just needed to bash my forehead against someone.

yesterday was maybe once per 2 months opportunity for me and my brother to finally have a cassual race with eachother and it was late, we ended up giving up after searching and trying to figure out how the hell everything worked, and we both had to go to bed. not one lap was done together on the track, so you can see where this frustration is coming from

in the best possible circumstances, with plenty of time and the right mind-set i guess the experience of hosting a simple game isn't as frustrating, but this is real life and we're grown ups trying to find the time in our every day lives to pull a few laps and have a blast, when that is taken from ya cuz of non user-friendliness
it gets ya frustrated..
 
I think what would be a compromise solution is for the game to do the vmod creation on the fly for us. So all we have to do is pick a car and a track and click host. Of course it would create a vmod in the filing system somewhere which could be shared with users.

Simplicity sometimes comes when isolating the users from the unnecessary convoluted process. But we should be able to have it both ways, for the power users, the ability to make vmods ourself with all the advanced options. For those that do not wish to get involved with that should be able to use the "on the fly" vmod creation. I still feel that RF2 is in it's infancy with teething problems galore. I am sure further down the line someone will create a utility to automate the harder tasks for us.
 
I think OP should be considered the type of user for which the sim is designed. Every piece of software should come with its proper instructions of how to use it. rF2 doesn't and in such condition a program should never be allowed to be released to the general public. It all started on a beta stage where it could be acceptable. Before changing its state to evolving product, one of the things they should have done is to prepare a startup guide for nobbies. They should forget about the old fashioned concept of end users as experienced rfactor old users. They do not need instructions but that is not an excuse.

enviado mediante tapatalk
 
I think we are all pretty much on the same page here, and I too agree that it should be possible for the GUI or Ded-server to create a temp. .rfmod :)
 
Woodee said:
I think what would be a compromise solution is for the game to do the vmod creation on the fly for us. So all we have to do is pick a car and a track and click host. Of course it would create a vmod in the filing system somewhere which could be shared with users.
Click to expand...

massive +1
 
Some things you state just baffle me, like being a user in the background figuring things out silently, yet never even saw the wiki or never noticed the million threads of confused people and their frustrations.
And you've seen the video before but still you assume going online doesn't need any considerations at all.

Anyways, lets settle down, I think the core of your issues are valid Ronin. The path to success in rf2 is not always user-friendly. the end result is, once you know it, but it can be frustrating yes.

As I said before, we've asked ISI many times before to simplify things a bit more, there's no need to keep it as confusing as it sometimes is. Sometimes they respond, most of the times not. (won't or can't, no idea)
Just today someone asked why his rf2 install aint working and , yet again, it was because he did not have components selected in the manager. simple thing, very often overlooked and people in here keep telling them what to do. This will be happening for years to come if ISI don't change that.
In fact I often wonder just how much of our feedback is actually filtering through to ISI. I fear not much.

I agree there should be an easier way to host, this too has been mentioned many times before. imo there should be a base-vmod in game already that used ISI-only content. that way it would be a one-click operation.
But then again, what if you and yer bro have the old and new version of Loch Drummond? if you look at the version numbers it isn't even clear which is the old one and which the new one. so even ISI ain't getting it right.

As much as a system can be optimized, every change will be facing new limits or challenges.
Its not just the mismatches either, its the blatant cheating as well we have seen in rf1. the exploring of bugs, not knowing why someone else would be faster, where they skilled or just abusing rf?


Anyways, in the end this thread does show that things should and possibly could be easier. novice users are trailing way behind and imo its hurting the community, one of the reasons why rf2 MP has not been successful yet because I think allot of people just give up onnit.
It wont always be easy or possible to 'just' change things for the devs, I think we all have to accept a certain complexity in the sim, after all this aint a console game where things are pre-determined, or iracing where everyone spends a fortune on content and they get a slick (locked) system to work with in return.
But for sure it could be less geeky for starters. we all need it, ISI needs more costumers, rf2 needs more drivers, leagues need more members and pickup racers need easy access.

I'm afraid it wont happen though. as much as I respect ISI and what they are doing and trying, I don't think this particular issue will be resolved.
In fact, and I could be wrong here, I think the more negative stuff poors into these forums and their emails and whatnot, the more ISI closes down on communications and willingness.
Chicken or egg story of course. but just the same.
 
The Devs don't bother reading the forums very often because of the constant unconstructive criticism. Ronin's post you could tell was written while he was frustrated. I can understand that. He followed up with more constructive criticism though. If all posts were constructive and didn't simply say, this sucks, I'm going to pCARS (like the majority of the posts on this forum), the devs would probably be more inclined to follow the forums more often. Our wishes would probably be granted more often too.

They are definitely getting there though. They opened up all kinds of possibilities with the cmd line options on the ModMgr and I have now found a reliable way to automate the MAS2 tool for package building. I now have the tools to build a vmod tool that should be easier to use. But I am sort of holding off because I think ISI has their own plans for vmods. I don't want to waste a bunch of time making a user friendly vmod creator if ISI is going to automate it a month later.
 
Someone suggested a server-admin subforum and Tim reacted positively onnit. I hope we do get it and can get something more constructive going, it would probably help out a great deal in the end if we and ISI can just get cracking at issues without the endless streams of emotions.

I wont be surprised if that is something ISI could use as well.
 
Noel Hibbard said:
The Devs don't bother reading the forums very often because of the constant unconstructive criticism. Ronin's post you could tell was written while he was frustrated. I can understand that. He followed up with more constructive criticism though. If all posts were constructive and didn't simply say, this sucks, I'm going to pCARS (like the majority of the posts on this forum), the devs would probably be more inclined to follow the forums more often. Our wishes would probably be granted more often too.
Click to expand...

I dont think thats true at all. If you read through the forum its a very small minority that has that behaviour. Most are very patient and trying to be constructive in spite of their frustrations. But you cannot change that if you have many frustrated users it will of course show in the forum.
 
Mibrandt said:
I dont think thats true at all. If you read through the forum its a very small minority that has that behaviour. Most are very patient and trying to be constructive in spite of their frustrations. But you cannot change that if you have many frustrated users it will of course show in the forum.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think I could have worded that better. I am not implying that most of the posts here are negative, I am just saying then when they are negative, the majority of them aren't even constructive.
 
Noel Hibbard said:
Yeah I think I could have worded that better. I am not implying that most of the posts here are negative, I am just saying then when they are negative, the majority of them aren't even constructive.
Click to expand...

I dont understand then. Do devs read the forums or they don't due to unconstructive criticism of a few?

enviado mediante tapatalk
 
SPASKIS said:
I dont understand then. Do devs read the forums or they don't due to unconstructive criticism of a few?

enviado mediante tapatalk
Click to expand...

They can't, would take too much out of the small dev team time. Tim has been gracious with his time and it is saddening that some time is taken talking down the trolls, patience of a saint!

I think after Luc's interview many people noticed just how small the dev team actually was! Other people ignored it and just wanted the impossible :)
 
SPASKIS said:
I dont understand then. Do devs read the forums or they don't due to unconstructive criticism of a few?

enviado mediante tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well they very rarely post but I just looked at Terence and Joe's profiles and they were both active yesterday and today. I suspect Tim reads the forums and gives them direct links to posts that are worth reading. They are busy guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top