what is the standard for high quality, you guys talk about high quality conversions well who sets the standard you, or the person who downloads the track, its all in how you look at it. some might say dang good track conversion. others might say this track sucks, who is right who is wrong. just because some of you think a conversion (this is going to suck) does not mean it will. its up to whoever downloads it and judges it for the quality. basically if you dont want conversions dont download them, but dont discourage people from making them. in my personal opinion there have been high quality conversions,
who says there not putting effort into any conversion, just because you dont think it looks good does not mean that they have put no effort into it.
Subjectivity only applies to a few areas and accuracy is not one of them, nor is the quality of that modelling/texturing. Did you even see the garbage that got 5/4.5 rated on rFC? That's not subjectively bad, that's just bad. It's a sad commentary on anyone if they put huge effort in to that track. Now yes, potentially I've just insulted someone but the odds are massively against that - whoever put that up didn't really put much time in.
again that is your opinion i have downloaded poor quality tracks it did not stop me from playing i just uninstalled that was it
i understand what your saying but i am not that person who made that conversion, just dont put all people who convert track in the same category as that one person.
'That's your opinion' does not address the arguments raised and absolutely does not apply to visual and physical accuracy. I don't but the simple fact is that even the best conversions are never perfect and reworking them is only a partial solution.
some of the best oval tracks have been conversions from other games and i base it off oval tracks because that is what i like i wont be converting road courses just ovals, rf1 and 2 have been geared toward road racing i think rf2 is seeing the potential for the guys that like oval racing. as i have heard they will be releasing more oval tracks, when they do i will update the oval tracks with better quality tso's. right now im working hard to bring something(converting ovals) to have more options. one track (phoenix) i have been working on it now for almost 2 weeks, and i am only 50% done i want this track to be high quality not for you or anyone else but for me(i have my own standards).
Again, 'your own standards' is fair enough but it does not mean that what you create is not then subject to objective analysis and certainly does not address cars. More, I'm not against converting outright, I just want conversions to be clearly labeled and separable because the sheer glut of them and their, on average, noticeably lower quality, makes finding good mods much harder and can create a poor representation of the product to an outsider.
You guys are unbelievable. No wonder the modding scene is so small and some mods are disappearing into private leagues without a public release.
You have 50% done after 2 weeks of work? Or maybe there is some ISI-like maths behind? I'm looking forward to judge 100% track.
its not ISI its me i want the track looking good, i have my standards there are things ISI has not updated yet or implemented . when they do, then i will if i have the track done come back to it and update it, so i can even make it better.
Sorry, I'm not going to continue debating with people who vigorously defend logically inconsistent positions. I'm glad I got the ball rolling but I'm saddened where you made it end up.
And he can't continue to do so? We've got a discussion rolling here and stepping in with what amounts to "You guys are wrong and suck for it and everything is wrong because of you" doesn't do anything but derail this. Edit - yep, now we've reached "I don't have to explain myself to people who are wrong and therefor bad people", definitely trolling now.
the point about this thread is (why conversions are cool), well anyone can convert tracks, cars or what not if you dont conversions, then dont download them. conversions are cool because it gives us as racers more options, for me different tracks to race on. more to choose from. its not about poor quality or high quality its about choices, just like we all have the choice to voice our opinion here in the forum. we all have different views, but this does not make me right you right. its just our opinion.
Les, but how can you tell, how much effort someone have put into creating or converting content? What we judge, is the final result. It might sound harsh but... for me, it doesn't matter if someone spent 2 hours or 2 years when working on a track. If it contain lots of bugs and looks like taken from 15 year old racing game (and we have 2012) then that is definatelly not to a general standards. What standards? Who defines them? Well, for rFactor an unwritten standard is content made by ISI. If you create a car or a track that is as good as ISI's work, then I will call it a good work. Unfortunatelly, the fact is that MOST of rF 1 tracks are clearly worse than what ISI gave us few years back with rFactor. In the same time I understand your point. But modders (those releasing lower quality stuff we are discussing here) have to understand, their work is slowly killing the whole platform. There are no real benefits of having a track being created or converted "asap". But the downside is huge, as it have huge impact on overall racing experience. You wouldn't belive how many times I had to show and prove to people, what rFactor 1 really can do! People (from simracing community!) say all this time: "rFactor can't do this", "rFactor can't do that". That's because most of modders didn't put enough effort to implement all things rF 1 can do. They went the easy way, "with the flow" and implement just basic functionality and nothing more. Commnunity have to be more demanding, otherwise we will have the same situation with rF 2, like we had (well, still have) with rF 1. @ethone If you mean content that is not up to "the standards" and their creators expecting to hear only how great their work is then OK. Let them hide in caves... pro publico bono
The 'your opinion' line is by and large irrelevant. As established the accuracy of a project, visually and physically, are objective factors, not subjective, and the game gives us a good benchmark for these. More, it's not subjective that converted work is, on average, average being an important word, of a lower quality than scratch built work. We're not even arguing from opposite sides, we're trying to build some kind of constructive outcome, for example, I'm fine with people converting as long as I can drop the converted tracks for rF2 from my search/browsing results.
I do (but note that I didn't say "any"). Upper image - a conversion made by someone - he didn't even notice that lighting isn't working at all. Buildings and grandstands are shapeless - how could he not see it? Lower image - what I achieved after 10 minutes of extra work. Of course I don't mean all conversions are bad, but so far, majority of those I've seen had this kind of errors in modelling. When converting tracks people sometimes mess up geometry and don't even notice that or put any effort whatsoever to fix it. There are aspects of quality that are not a subjective. Proper geometry with working lighting is just one example.
i understand what your saying, but you saying "But the downside is huge, as it have huge impact on overall racing experience." i disagree with that statement why because if i thought the way you say, i would not be racing rf1 anymore but i do, and its a good racing experience for me(vhr stockcar) its only one aspect of rf1. low quality tracks does not mean the end of rfactor its proven by a game that came out years ago rf1 and people still race on it even with the low quality tracks.
