I wrote this for my blog, but I think there's a an audience for this topic here too. Unlike some posters who made rather negative comments over the last few weeks, I think having converted content (tracks, mostly - cars convert less easily with more technologically different between sims) is pretty damn cool. Here's why: Quickly available catalog of tracks This is most apparent with newly released sims, and is glaringly obvious with the current state of rF2. The catalog of available tracks is rather small. Every single track that gets converted at this stage is an addition to it and gives users more choices. On top of it, a conversion allows modders to add tracks to the sim in a timely fashion. Creating a track from scratch can take between 3 months (if you're working on it nearly full-time) and 2 years. Converting a track, depending on the source sim and quality of the data you have, can be done within a week. Reduction of required resources Why create another version of Heartland Park Topeka when there is a decent enough version for rF1 that can be brought over? Instead of someone spending their time and effort on a track that is already done to a decent enough level of quality, they can spend their time and effort on a track that has not seen the light of any sim or re-do a track that is only available in a very low level of quality. Similarly, the demarcation lines between sims can be artificial and arbitrary. The Race XYZ series essentially consisted of a collection of commercial rF1 mods. "Converting" a track from there to rF1 merely makes a jump over a theoretical demarcation line, not a technological one. There can be much bigger differences (both in quality and technological features) between tracks for a single sim than between track of two separate sims. No inherent quality disadvantage Conversions don't need to be bad. They will only be of low quality if the modder doing the conversion mishandles the process or the original version of the track was already of low quality. If you convert Virtua_LM's staggeringly excellent Mid-Ohio or Le Mans to rF2, they will still be staggeringly excellent and they will only have added quality through the new/specific features the target sim supports Better than nothing at all You might be surprised what kind of tracks some people are willing to run on. In a rF1 league I was part of we ran a version of the Belle Isle course in Detroit that was essentially a conversion from IndyCar Racing 2 with mildly updated trackside objects and new curbs. And as a venue for a championship race, it was fine. Based on that experience, I dare say that no matter how bad a track is, if it is functional there will be somebody who will happily run it. Thus, even if a mediocre (or worse) track is converted, it adds to the joy of the userbase, it doesn't detract from it. If you don't want to race it, it doesn't cost you a single thing to follow through and, well, not race it. They can be entry-level projects for newcomers Creating a track from scratch doesn't only take a long time and even more effort, it also requires knowledge. So when a newcomer would be faced with his first project, there are three huge hurdles (time, effort, knowledge) she has to clear. Missing just a single one will result on a less than optimal quality of the finished track, if it doesn't outright drive the newcomer back out of modding. Conversions cut out a big chunk of the work that's left for the modder, in that she doesn't have to (re)create all the objects. Especially conversions from sims that aren't similar to each other (like e.g. rF1 and Race 07), they will still learn an awful lot about the process and requirements of the target sim. Due to the decreased overall amount of work, the chances of seeing the project completed rise and there is less chance of them giving up before producing anything.