This might have been mentioned before, but since I haven't seen it, I'll go ahead and post. 1. When someone make a .dds file for a car, making it a separate working car by going through the vehicle viewer is a little complicated. This process could be a little easier. I'm used to making my own .veh, finding a suit and helmet with rF1. 2. No read me files for tracks. All that appears on the menu is track name. Unless someone adds a whole string to ID the track there is no way to see who made it, when they made it, or if it for a certain mod. 3. No read me files for mods. Who made it? When did they make it? Etc. Could the info for the skin and the mod it is for be displayed on the vehicle select screen (showroom)? Add 2 buttons "Mod info" and "skin info" It would also be nice to be able to display this info in the rF2 launcher where you install everything. As well as install, uninstall, delete add an info option to bring up a fact sheet with all the car and mod info info. I just installed the Flat Six mod and the Series component would not install. I tried a few things with no success. Then I clicked the settings button and there was a message telling me I needed to add 2 tracks in order to install the mod. Why didn't that come up on the page where I was trying to install? Would have saved a lot of time. There is a pop up window that will tell you what mods are using what files for components that have been installed. Why not make it tell you when you need to add files to a component that won't install as well? When you are on line and want to d/l a mod you get a window showing what components you will need, why not off line as well? I've just deleted 3 Aussie V8 Supercar mods and kept the best one. Want to guess how many Bathurst tracks I've got? Since there is only 1 file in the track folder now, an .rfcmp that you can't open and look at, I have no idea where these came from or who did them. Again we need a way to see a read me file for tracks. In this case a 2013 Bathurst v0.90, Bathurst 2013 v0.95 and 2013 Bathurst .96 could be by 3 different teams. rF2 is still a beta an we already got duplicate stuff piling up. We need a way to sort this stuff out. It should be obvious that rF2 is my favorite sim. Or else I would not have used it enough to find out these things.
The only nitpicky portion to your post is the fact rF2 hasn't been beta for over 2 years, actually. On the rest, yup. The old mod manager had information, usually only populated by scratch-build modders.
it does show what you are missing to install the mod on the content screen - it also puts an asterisk next to it... View attachment 18878
+1 I agree in principal. I thought was better way to deal with all this since F1 Challenge days, when mods started to take off. I said similar here years before but no one ever comments, so considering you interested in fixes you might hear me out. hehehe ========= kk... Virtually ISI's packaging concept and 3PA has gone 3/4's of the way to my ideas 15 years ago. So.... You have a Co-Op that sets standards for everything, if you want the stamp of approval you meet them. The Co-Op would be a committee of modders, painters, data gurus and test drivers , etc Hypothetically ISI would only allow approved co-op content to have a Content ID That way ISI have nothing to do with advertising or licencing issues, just as they don't with add-ons right now, the difference is they could block anything without a ID approved by the community's peers. For instance tracks could be rated " Hotlap" , " Offline " , "Online" , " League" Without a Co-Op ID you could only run content either: 1. offline or 2. on a Secondary unannounced ISI developer server That way any content on official sever would be subject to the same rules and tested to meet the same standards down to the spelling. What could be fairer then that ? Betas, rips, no permissions could still be hosted on the developer server no problem. Something like that would solve most all issues, you would have clinical naming, no doubles of anything, not even Car #'s lol As content was updated the new content would take the old content's ID The Co-Op would be funded by paid up members who would get benefits of early testing, fast downloads of big approved archives, etc. etc.
Thanks for the help. I was wrong on this one. I did move the mouse pointer over a non installing file, but did not get the display. Since it does seem to work I must have done something wrong. I re-check a few things. However it would be nice to do this without loading the files into the game. With .zip\7z files you can look at the enclosed read.me files without unpacking or loading into the game folder. That is nice.
