Where are all the 3rd party tracks?

I had to read what e.g. stood for. I said I wasn't sure I read that right. If I was blonde I think that would be a moment. lol

 

And you don't even get to use the 'not a native speaker' excuse !

This sounds wonderful, but, aren't you describing 3dsimEd and BTB already here? Easy and intuitive, although limited tools to build, convert and or update tracks? I also hope you realize, the more flexibility you wish for BTB to have, the more complex it can get*. How long before novice BTB users are going to be turned off because it's gotten too complex for them to grasp? That does defeat the entire purpose of the software if you ask me


*I think one of the biggest reasons 3D software is hard to get into, you can do everything you want, how you want, and more..

 

No, but he has published enough and updated them enough that I trust his view of the effort required.

What is your estimate of the ratio of rF1 track versus rF2 track effort (to equal an ISI track of either generation)?

 

Another fact is that none of them used BTB.

 

Replacing or upgrading textures (and shaders) is something very easy to do in 3ds max, where is the problem?

Making a track now is the same as making a track for rF1, it just takes more time if you want to make it with higher quality. But the modelling, texturing process is basically the same.

 

So why do we not even have simple conversions of rF1 tracks that are competent? How many hours went into updating Mid-Ohio (already excellent) or Longford 1967 (already very good)? I have no first-hand knowledge I will freely admit. I just know and work with and see people who produced rF1 tracks that were the benchmark of their day either struggling or taking one hell of a long time to update them to rF2. I see almost no new user-created tracks that are of a fully professional level and one of the only people to create three is gone from the scene. No one hopes to be proven wrong more than me, but when ISI can't even produce many because they have "only" two people working full time on them, I won't be holding my breath that super-talented volunteers will be plentiful. More likely, we might be lucky enough to encounter another feels3 who might produce one or two tracks as a portfolio just before they get snapped-up by a developer with bigger pockets than ISI.

 

be great if there was a 3d max track building tutorial (the ones on YouTube click things and change things without even explaining what it is or why etc ) together with a package of scripts (are they called scripts?) dedicated to track building with step by step guides for each, shame 3d max dosnt have a dedicated track building mode

didn't feels3 build his tracks with bobs track builder?

 

If I had to put a number on it, 25% more work? On a side note, I only build short ovals. Have yet to build a road course or anything over a .5 mile. I could see a 2.5-3 mile roadie requiring a little more work based on pure size alone. In my opinion, building/texturing just about everything is exactly the same minus the track mesh. You could get by with 1-4 polys across in rF1 and it would work out fine. Now, the real road will look horrible with only 4 polys. I've converted one of my rF1 tracks over in about 30-40 mins. That includes having realroad working (I do all my tracks in max and have the orig files). Since most is already made, I could then just update buildings/textures as needed. Add more detail as needed or just build new. I have the old building as a template so its not like I would need to search for info. Unless you did a total hack job on the object, it shouldn't be to hard to add more detail.

Remove max out of the question, 50-75% more work. My guess if you wanted to upgrade the detail of a building you would need Simed to export out as 3ds (or any other format), import into another 3d prog, adjust, back out to simed, then finally a gmt. Plus during that process the if I remember correctly .3ds files break the verts? If it does, more work is required if you want something smoothed over. Adding polys to the track is another venture you will need to tackle. The list goes on and on. So the non-max converters will require more work.

End of the day, only a select few will have the talent to touch what the ISI guys are doing in rF2. Mixture of modeling and textures are top notch. They also have years of experience doing what they do. Most of us do this as a hobby. Each track I make I attempt to improve on the last one. All I can do is my best. If you don't like it, oh well. Plenty of other tracks out there to race.

 

It's pretty much the same. In rF2 you have stuff like reflections to set up, and additional mapping for the real road. It doesn't take ages, and doesn't justify the lack of 3rd party tracks.
I was working on a rF1 track, using "rF2 techniques" and mostly similar shaders. And then, when I exported it in rF2, I just had to set up the shaders for rF2, and that was all.
It's not more difficult to do a rF2 track, it doesn't take more time to do than a rF1 track, and 3dsmax is perfectly fine to do that.

If the time spaskis spent complaining on the forum was spent in learning 3dsmax, he wouldn't need BTB. On the one hand, you have ISI and other professionals using 3dsmax to produce tracks. On the other hand, you have spaskis.

 

There are mainly two reasons in my opinion, first of all is the very short userbase of rF2 nowadays (tons of people had cracked version of rF1, and more people = more chances to have better modders), and second is that the quality target is different for each person. For some guys a quick and fast conversion is enough (sadly for too many), for others it isn't.

Making a top quality track is difficult, but not due to lack of tools. It is difficult because it requires skill and a lot of time.

 

Yes, and Microsoft Paint to tweak textures

 

I agree completely.

But I think the point some are trying to make is that of the people out there who have those skills and are interested in rF2 (extremely few), some may get annoyed or frustrated with some elements of the process (either finicky or not well documented or whatever). We can't afford to put even small obstacles in the path of these people or they will just go elsewhere, which they already have many other reasons to do so.

I haven't even looked, so this isn't a flame attempt, but what track construction tools does AC have or are they intending to have? AC is really the only comparable in terms of openness to modding, unless PCARS has changed their approach recently.

 

cheers Domi,

he did good ( although the actual track surfaces a tad lifeless but maybe the real world versions are too who am I to say )
they are decent tracks overall

 

I'm not an AC fan sadly

is creating a track for AC the same ( or similar to ) process as creating one for rfactor 2 ??

(for anyone that may be in the know)

eg BTB or 3d max etc

 

I have been learning 3ds max (well, and I am still) in the last months, and playing a bit with rF2 tracks myself, and to be honest I can't see any problem at all. There is even good documentation from ISI regarding track editing and the differences between rF1 and rF2. But you must want to learn and learn and learn, and have patience, otherwise you have nothing to do. But this is not ISI fault, it would be the same with AC, now that you mention it. In AC you have to model the track in a professional 3d software as well, however Kunos released some track editing software for material/shader stuff. Something that you don't need for rF2, because that's already included in ISI's scripts for 3ds max.

 

OK, then we won't have many top-quality tracks for AC or rF2!

 

The problem I have with all of this is that the increasing photo-realism means the console ninnies will get more popular because those developers can afford large staffs of artists and technicians, while the sim world will become less popular as the visual gap (always there and always will be there) between the two grows even wider. It's not just a matter of processing power and graphics hardware, it's the content production. That's a new and worsening trend for sims in my opinion.

 

And you are comparing ISI-quality rF1 tracks to ISI-quality rF2 tracks, as I asked? Could you list one or two rF2 tracks you have done (sorry if I am not familiar with your work)?

 

Never said it was, dude. I'm putting in the work, albeit slowly, Max has a steep learning curve and I'm still learning it by consuming, that's right, my time and effort.

 

And you are comparing ISI-quality rF1 tracks to ISI-quality rF2 tracks, as I asked? Could you list one or two rF2 tracks you have done (sorry if I am not familiar with your work)?