LFS reality check - review at GAMEFACTION [Archive]

RichardTowler

5th December 2005, 12:46

It's amazing. LFS only has 5/10 points, and yet it provided me with more fun than any other game ever has.

But I guess that's simply a matter of what you find important. Some prefer hardcore simulation, some bling bling. That's mainly directed at the comment that GTR's sound makes up for the lacking physics.

but that probally says more about where sim racing currently is, what do we have now, lfs, rfactor, gtr, gtl, nr2003 to name a few, if you can say any of those games deserve a score (if reviewing now) above 7/8 than you need to up your hopes alittle I think, the highest is probally nr2003 and I'd give that around 7.

5/10 may seem a low score, but as stated it is the alpha version reviewed and when the final version is released, I will take a look at upping the score and adding to the review what has changed, I'd say the potential in this release is 7, but all depends what is included in s2 final.

I'am not one for adding scores for reviews, people should read the review and make up there own mind, but they do add a point to start a debate so it works both ways.

Although I'am a sim racer and have been for a few years now, and the I feel the sim community is often too full of praise for anything that is released, its a very odd community, it would have to give rfactor the amount of praise it has got :) it needs more thinking 'what can we improve here' rather than 'lets kiss some ass no matter how bad it tastes'

but that said, everything I write is just my opinion, and mine only, it is still up to everyone else to decide what they think.

Da Hoe

5th December 2005, 12:50

i still remember some posts by him here being very provocating. instead of critisizing in a helpful way he wrote some (imho) not very smart posts.
so that 5/10 by him are actually surprising me ;)

edit: doh, i shouldnt do other stuff after hitting the reply button.

dhinchin

5th December 2005, 13:05

I think LFS is very good indeed for an Alpha, but agree with the article. A follow up after final release would be interesting.

ikkah

5th December 2005, 13:06

Vykos69

5th December 2005, 13:08

lemme try and put the review more in perspective,
since most people here dont know, and obviously the reviewer wouldnt come here and brag about it, richard towler (the reviewer) is in the top3 of fast people ive raced with.

greger huttu, richardtowler and lefty are the ones that impressed me most over the years.

he recently took escors championship title, but he has way more league titles under his belt for teamredline.
ive also raced him in lfs (besides n2003 and gtp) and he was instantly fast. he also had some WRs in southcity.
i know he tested the game before writing that text.

this is not your avg stupid arcade gaming tester.

still, the text and final rate are obviously subjectable to personal opinion. being fast and experienced doesnt mean you are god, only means that you probably know what you are talking about a bit better than the next fellow.
Yeah, but it's still Rich, and he sucks anyway ;) :tilt: :D

SlamDunk

5th December 2005, 13:14

But still... a 5/10 score is WAY too low it's not even funny. In my books 5 = pure garbage and that LFS certainly is not.

axus

5th December 2005, 13:18

Some very true points in the review, HOWEVER, I cannot agree with the RWD's being too loose. Sure it takes some getting used to but I have spent a lot of time with LFS and now I can enjoy any car I drive. Also the feedback in LFS is more informative for me than anything else I have tried. You know the F9 view, right? Look at the pressure bars. That's all you really need to know while you are driving, right? You wouldn't be able to watch that and drive at the same time though, atleast you wouldn't react quickly enough to what you see. So its up to the feedback to provide that through the wheel and after spending as much time with S2 as I have, I honestly feel all that information through the wheel. After you feel that, it is a simple matter of adjusting your driving style based on how you think the car would react and if it reacts like you think it should then you get a good time around the track. I think that I have gotten this pretty much right over time (you can't expect to just jump from nowhere into a 300bhp/tonne road car and be god, or into a RWD racer for that matter - or anything and if you can, you are driving an arcade, not a simulation) so now I can set good times without putting much effort into it. Spend some more time with LFS and you will see that it isn't that difficult to drive. If you find the controller's feel numb, try sorting the settings out. DFP @ 550deg rotation here. Overall effect strenght @ 100%, Spring and Damper effects @ 0%, Center Spring disabled. 30% - 70% FF in LFS depending on the car.

KiDCoDEa

5th December 2005, 13:21

sure slamdunk, but thats your book. the rate comes from the reviewer book. its his text, his criteria, his numbers.

sinbad

5th December 2005, 13:24

I agree with most of the stuff, but I really doubt that 5/10 is a good enough score. Sure, points are always relative, and LFS is the best scoring game on that site (there's one with 4/10), but still I feel that the score isn't enough. Even with those issues, LFS doesn't sounds like a 5/10 game.

Well, I rarely agree with the scores given to games. I see some new xbox 360 titles scoring 96% etc, which makes no sense as it implies games can only ever be 4% better. :pillepall

I agree with most of the points, it would be ridiculous to say there isn't massive room for improvement in LFS, or for that matter in every single sim out there currently.

danowat

5th December 2005, 13:26

Bottomline, who cares what a review says, if you like the game/sim, drive it, recommend it to your friends, the best way for others to experiance it is to use it thereselves rather than rely on soneone elses opinions.
I do agree the rear wheel drive physics are a little wild, I have driven ALOT of rear wheel drive cars in my time and the only time they come remotely close to those in LFS is on ice.
Still 5/10 is an average score, the core of LFS is VERY good, but it has a long way to go before its as polished as other "full" releases.

Dan.

xaotik

5th December 2005, 13:30

The only thing I cannot agree with at all in that article is the comment about the tracks. Everything else I can agree to up to a point. As for scores, everything is relative so it's pointless trying to score one's score - not to mention you might end up in an endless loop and we all hate those... :)

Best of luck with the new GameFaction site and hope to see more reviews in the future.

axus

5th December 2005, 13:30

Well, I rarely agree with the scores given to games. I see some new xbox 360 titles scoring 96% etc, which makes no sense as it implies games can only ever be 4% better. :pillepall

I agree with most of the points, it would be ridiculous to say there isn't massive room for improvement in LFS, or for that matter in every single sim out there currently.

IMHO this is simply a different rating system, rating the simulation on what it simulates and how well it does it over what it could simulate. Other reviews normally rate what it simulates and how well it simulates it over how well the best of the competition does it. In this respect LFS scores pretty well considering that we are at version 0.5Q and by the time we get to 1.0 it could be 10/10.

tristancliffe

5th December 2005, 13:34

And Scawen has become quiet, so maybe he's playing with physics (he said he'd go quiet when he did that :p)

AndroidXP

5th December 2005, 13:38

Or he got stuck in the kitchen :tilt:

thisnameistaken

5th December 2005, 13:42

I think people are a bit too hung up on this 5/10 thing, marks out of ten are never particularly meaningful anyway.

I'd agree with the bigger problems; something about the physics on the RWDs in LFS doesn't feel right to me, but I don't race cars in real life so I'm not a good judge. One particular thing that feels wrong is the way the road cars are totally at the mercy of bumps and dips.

RichardTowler

5th December 2005, 13:43

thats the reason for the score, the CORE is very good, its just most of what is around the core isn't finished yet, or just isn't good enough yet, as I said I'd give nr2003 a 7 if i reviewed it now, because that is more rounded and finished to a higher quality in areas that I feel are more important, one of them is the feel of the sim, it has something special in this area where you know what is going on when you are driving and I feel LFS could learn from this, for sure it is not perfect, but its done through many small touches here and there that add up to a great driving experence, even if the physics are flawed in certain areas.

Live for Speed does frustrate me, because I can see perhaps how great it could be only if it was more complete, and some things where maybe done alittle different. I'am not saying Live for Speed is bad, far from it, the score just reflects the current development status.

axus

5th December 2005, 13:45

And Scawen has become quiet, so maybe he's playing with physics (he said he'd go quiet when he did that :p)

Yes, and by the time he's done I think he will have an almost orgasm-inducing physics update for us :D and I'm pretty sure sounds and graphics come after that. Eric's work hasn't been put in any of the recent patches (nothing of his since June - 5 months and yes 2.5 were holiday/break but the rest is a lot of time for creating new, more detailed interiors, polisihing off the track textures etc etc). Hopefully DX9 shaders come in before S2 final, otherwise I think S2 will really suffer. Sound improvements (and not so much fixes because the basic engine sound is good) and additions of new sounds like cog-swaps, diff noise etc etc. have been demanded so much by the community that I am almost sure that they will also be done before S2 final.

axus

5th December 2005, 13:50

one of them is the feel of the sim, it has something special in this area where you know what is going on when you are driving

Its funny you should criticise that because I have raced a few other simulations (not nr2003, admitedly) and LFS had the best feel of the lot. Maybe your settings are wrong or it takes some getting used to but I find it very good (and this is one of the points that LFS has been praised for). I will look into nr2003 but I must say that I am very happy with LFS FF as it is.

KiDCoDEa

5th December 2005, 13:52

i posted a top 3 already, heres another kind of top3

tristan, axus, fordman.

u do the math ;)

Fordman

5th December 2005, 13:54

Well a up and down review. As people say here, and I have to agree, some good points made and true to the fact, but,

Point 1 | sound samples? Now if he indeed plays the game, like he does, and knows the game, like he does, then he also knows LFS DOESN'T use sound samples, as explained by Scawen long long time ago why.

Point 2 | Expensive :shrug: Not sure why. Best damn £24 I have ever paid. Comparison - NR2003 was, approx £39.99 and you brought this what 2 years ago, and still playing. Now we know LFS is a 3 stage game, so, approx £36 is fair value to me. Also remember, for, so far £24, you are paying for a constant developed game, not just on the shelve, there thats your lot game.

Point 3 | Mods to the game. Why release a Mod for a game that is being constantly developed? Lets wait until the game has finished, and then see.

Still makes me smile that people are reviewing an Alpha.

@Kid tristan, axus, fordman
And whats that suppost to mean:Looking_a

axus

5th December 2005, 13:57

i posted a top 3 already, heres another kind of top3

tristan, axus, fordman.

u do the math ;)

:smileypul

Still makes me smile that people are reviewing an Alpha.

That is actually an impressive thing because how many alpha reviews do you see, comparing games to finished products? It actually gives LFS credit for being so good, even at alpha stage if you look at it from that point of view. :tilt:

And whats that suppost to mean

I'm not sure, but I think it means that we are really cool and we are more right than Richard Towler.

Hyperactive

5th December 2005, 13:58

Still makes me smile that people are reviewing an Alpha.

It's even funnier that people buy Alphas.

Also found some odd posts by this "reviewer": http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=1252

Seems he didn't get his money back and wrote then that article ;) (joking)

noemfie

5th December 2005, 14:02

Agree with alot of things mentioned in the article and it is good that it gets pointed out . I do however think a kinda rating scale would help , seeing that nr2003 would only get a 7 than 5 is not all that bad . But to a normal gamer reading mags like PC Format etc a score of 5 normally means the game really sucks . So they would probably look at the score first before even reading the article and say "a waste of time" .

RichardTowler

5th December 2005, 14:07

It's even funnier that people buy Alphas.

Also found some odd posts by this "reviewer": http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=1252

Seems he didn't get his money back and wrote then that article ;) (joking)

I never got my money back :razz: seriously that post was made at the same time alot of discussion was made about rfactor on this forum, which was what the whole joke was about.

AndroidXP

5th December 2005, 14:14

First one to make this post on the rFactor forums wins the prize
:mad: $$$ refund
Ok, I've spent the last three days downloading the cracked version of rFactor and what did I get? The graphics are ugly and the cars laughable. You say you need mods to make this game good? Where are they!?

I demand to get a refund for the time I spent downloading this piece of crap. My poor 56k modem almost died on me :gnasher:

nikimere

5th December 2005, 14:31

It's even funnier that people buy Alphas.
Dont u mean It's even funnier that people buy Alfa's (http://www.alfaromeo.com) ??

colcob

5th December 2005, 15:12

VIP UA

5th December 2005, 15:14

Not with all it agree. But as a whole the review good.

RichardTowler

5th December 2005, 15:29

Well, its an interesting review. And while I agree with some of the points, if you are going to go to the trouble of writing a proper review and getting it published, it might be an idea to get someone to check the spelling and grammar before you hit the upload button.

while I do try my best and limit the errors I'm sure a few got through, if you can offer any help please let me know via pm :)

axus

5th December 2005, 15:44

while I do try my best and limit the errors I'm sure a few got through, if you can offer any help please let me know via pm :)

You have a big one - I hope you don't mind if I point it out in public?
RichardTowler's online stats (http://www.lfsworld.net/?win=stats&racer=RichardTowler)

828Ml... nowhere near enough to experience LFS the way it should be experienced. Give it a chance. Yes there are bugs floating around and Scawen has said he is working on the physics next so I'm sure some of them are being fixed as we speak. But I guarantee it that by the time you have done 3000Ml you will forget the incomplete sound model and the not-as-good-and-bling-bling graphics and all you will want to do is drive another lap around the track and keep the guy you are racing behind you. The raceabout isn't that hard to drive for anyone with experience (which I hear you have a lot of) and it will keep you biting your lips in even the least challenging corners... once you have done 3000Ml+ I will accept your review as fair. I have done 14000Ml and I am enjoying all cars, except 4 in LFS - and that is because I haven't spent enough time with them.

EDIT: I'm sure that any real racer will agree that 828Ml is not enough to learn how to race. Even if you know other simulations, it takes time to adapt to the different physics (not necessarily better or worse).

NotAnIllusion

5th December 2005, 15:47

Thank you for the outstanding review, Richard. I agree with all of your criticism, except that LFS uses bad sound samples, while it doesn't use them at all :p. I think 5/10 is a fair score when reviewing LFS as a finished product. As an alpha, I think it's still pretty darned good to be competing with the big boys while not being anywhere near complete as of yet.

One might say it's expensive, 24 quid for an alpha test version of a product that may never be completed (while perhaps unlikely, it yet remains a distinct possibility), but looking at the potential content and quality it's not such a bad price. We won't be paying any more money for the full, completed version of S2 if/when it is released.

@the ppl who don't find the current tracks boring in any car in any way whatsoever: Look at the tracks critically. Blackwood for example, one hairpin, veeeeeery long backstraight and the rest are medium speed corners. Aston (excluding Cadet) has a maximum of 3 slow corners in a config and the rest are fast or medium. Kyoto, again there are a couple of slow turns and the rest are a bit sleep inducing. Those are already quite a lot of configs discounted ;)

LFS is a good product and will be much, much better once S2 will be completed. I hope Richard will focus on these improvements and be able to give LFS the Top Mark we all expect it to achieve.

RichardTowler

5th December 2005, 15:53

You have a big one - I hope you don't mind if I point it out in public?
RichardTowler's online stats (http://www.lfsworld.net/?win=stats&racer=RichardTowler)

are the physics different offline?

axus

5th December 2005, 15:56

are the physics different offline?
No, but the experience is...
Note: Online Racing Simulator.
And if you are driving offline you are missing the whole point/thrill.

Tweaker

5th December 2005, 16:00

axus

5th December 2005, 16:03

Richard already described the netcode is good.... and only driving 828 miles online to come to that decision is enough proof already :)

Physics are no different online. Nothing wrong with reviewing how everything feels offline... other than not experiencing quite a few large grid races online. Which I am sure he took a shot at.

But his PB's are nothing special - I get within 103% of the WR (benchmark on LFSW) in 5 laps easily on most tracks. And that is when LFS is satisfying, not when you are just 'keeping it on the track'.

KiDCoDEa

5th December 2005, 16:03

Point 1 | sound samples? Now if he indeed plays the game, like he does, and knows the game, like he does, then he also knows LFS DOESN'T use sound samples, as explained by Scawen long long time ago why.

I agree with all of your criticism, except that LFS uses bad sound samples, while it doesn't use them at all

please stop posting innacuracies.
LFS uses SAMPLES. they are mostly of poor quality. some didnt even loop properly (the ones that need that loop) . samples are used EVERYWHERE in LFS except for engine sound generation which is synth based. sound overall in lfs is poor. of synth or sample based nature, it doesnt matter. :)

AndroidXP

5th December 2005, 16:15

Of course not *everything* is synthed, but when someone criticizes LFS sound, it's 99% of the time the engine sound. And this is synthed, no samples (as you said). So no need to defend Richard there, that was indeed a mistake in his review as I'm pretty sure he referred to the engine sounds.

xaotik

5th December 2005, 16:17

Oh yeah, another thing I noticed in that review - and mostly unrelated to it's content. You should turn off the autocensoring module in your CMS software.

... but what will disappoint is that all the cars come with a very familiar basic *censored*pit layout, even the racing cars look the same inside apart from the added roll cage detai...

That is provided you enjoy cocktails without little stars in them. :)

Hallen

5th December 2005, 16:28

Please stop attacking Richard or Richards right to publish a review, it's not the point.

Most of the area's that he mentions are probably the areas that need work. I don't care about the bling-bling factor.

The rwd cars are quite drivable if you have them setup properly. Unless you have pushed the limits on a road course with a 500+ hp race car, you can't know how it will react on slow corners. They are difficult to drive, that is why only a few people make to the top level in real life. Having said that, there do seem to be a few things that are a bit off, but these things affect all cars, just in different ways. I think it is fair to point these things out.

Building a rating scale with numbers is virtually impossible. Most become horribly inflated over time. Everybody gets a 8-9/10 rating no matter how good or bad. You have effectively made your rating scheme a 2 scale scheme instead of a 10 scale scheme. I respect Richard for maintaining the integrity of his scale.

However, it would be nice to say just a bit more in the article about the community and how awesome the online racing can be. The cars behave the same all the time. They are predictable. Small changes in setup have noticeable affects and they behave the way you would expect. All of this is pretty amazing.

There is a lot of people who will see a rating of 5/10 and not even bother to check further, they will just move on. That is too bad, for them. They need to read and understand that the reviewer was not condemning the game as bad. If Richard continues his reviews, maintains his integrity and honestly rates other games in the same way, then LFS will still come out looking great.

Fordman

5th December 2005, 17:58

please stop posting innacuracies.

Sorry my fault, worded wrong, this is what I meant......

but when someone criticizes LFS sound, it's 99% of the time the engine sound. And this is synthed, no samples (as you said).

Thank you AndriodXP, thats what I meant to say.

NotAnIllusion

5th December 2005, 18:14

Me too, me too ^^ :p

ButterTyres

5th December 2005, 18:16

I like some others can agree with some of the review. Good on Richard for writing it and coming here to discuss it too, I think I would be hiding somewhere right now :)

There is a lot of critism thrown at the rear-drives in LFS. Now, I'm no *fast* racer, but I'm average-to-quick in most of the cars (given the right amount of practice). As for the race cars, I havent really done a huge amount of milage in - but I do know this about the RWD cars: The GT and the FOX are absolutely brilliant.

The feeling you get when the GT is on the absolute limit is brilliant, you get that noise of the tyres peeling (not the correct phrase, but youll know what i mean if youve done it), the way you feel like your in complete control of the rear end. Thats got to be a Sim with some proper physics doing that. Although, as Ive said in another thread, im no physics expert.

I dont know Richard, but maybe he's done degrees in physics....

Another thing is this, perhaps all racing games have "tamed" the handling of the cars as they have been too lairy. Do we want the same thing to happen to LFS? I happened to find some of the cars a little tail happy in GTR sometimes too... I'm not sure anyway... as I said, Im no expert.. :)

I have read many reviews of real life cars, and alot with 500hp+ and RWD are difficult to keep in a straight line, maybe thats what LFS is showing us?

Hell I dont know, gives us something to talk about while Scawen goes quiet though eh :)

gp4racer

5th December 2005, 19:22

This guy, Richard forgots about the nature of LFS, this is a game to play online, I know, its really boring try to drive a nice and clean race with the AI, therefore, you can drive on the web...

STROBE

5th December 2005, 19:27

Well I think most things have already been covered by others, and I'll say that I think the review seems a reasonably balanced effort but one that gets disparaging in a couple of areas which don't appear justified to a regular LFS driver.

The price is one thing that seems to be increasingly used against LFS - the idea of paying £12 per release is somehow "expensive". Of course it all depends on how much you play and consequently appreciate the product, but as already mentioned, £24 is simply not expensive for a continuously developed product with personal involvement/accountability from the devs within the community. Look at what many large publishers do with all manner of sports and simulations titles - crank out the same stuff every year as a full price, new title; but with each release (usually) offering far fewer new features/content than the transition from S1 to S2. Whether or not one enjoys LFS enough to get the most out of S2 doesn't change the fact that the S1/2/3 licensing system represents far better value for the content and improvements than the yearly, almost identical releases of the traditional publishing system. From my own experience with LFS, I haven't played anything this much for ages and as such I think it's underpriced compared to the enjoyment per pound ratio of whatever is on the shelves in GAME.

Then there's the physics issues - of which there are certainly many. Now I'll be the first to hold my hand up and admit that I haven't driven a 500bhp GTR car on cold tyres around a track so I have no idea what it should feel like, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if I struggle to stop it swapping ends on me, until I invent a time machine and start karting and racing from the age of seven like most pro drivers have. :) But while the physics (and especially the aero & low speed grip - the two most prominent current failings) are definitely in need of improvement, they are at least 100% consistent. I don't like the way the XRR suddenly loses the back end in a steady low speed corner for absolutely no reason, but after familiarising/learning the car some more, the driving or setup adjustments required to limit it make perfect sense and the car reacts accordingly to whatever changes you make to it. It doesn't react in the right way each time, but it reacts in the same way each time; which imho is one of the things that contributes to the immense accessibility of LFS.

I was more disappointed to note that the review fell into the same failing as most other reviews of LFS S2 Alpha, imho. Apart from a token mention at the beginning and end, with the occasional sole reference inbetween, there's a striking lack of caveats in the review regarding the fact that it's not even a beta product yet, it's an alpha. There are several (justified) criticisms of LFS in the review that could/should have been accompanied by the fact that this feature is widely expected to be improved upon by the final release. As it stands, a reader who is less knowledgeable about the concept of LFS may be left thinking that the final S2 for £24 is going to have pretty much the same failings. This is possible, and it's impossible to predict the future, but it seems highly unlikely.

As for the tracks, I thought it was generally known that the newer tracks were squarely aimed at the faster cars in S2. If the reviewer considers South City in a GTR/open-wheeled car to be a moderate challenge, then I'd suggest that the reviewer's driving skill is way in excess of the average racer. If it wasn't for the wide, sweeping turns of Aston, Kyoto and Westhill, more folk would find it prohibitively challenging to get a race in - a far higher proportion of people would just be crashing all the time. And vice versa, if you drive the original/road cars around the longer configurations of the new tracks, the high speed corners do indeed become pointless and dull. But to make such an accusation would, imho, be a case of missing the point of the new tracks.

If you pair the tracks/configurations with the according car classes (which is just what they do in real life - F1 cars at Silverstone use the full length, relatively fast circuit while most of the other more humdrum stuff uses a much shorter track with tighter corners) then I happen to think the track design is superb, especially if you consider the rationale behind each circuit. Aston, for example, is clearly a fairly historic circuit and as such is never going to have too many slow, technical sections. I don't ever recall this working against Monza, Silverstone, or Spa-Francorchamps. All the tracks have their defining features for me, which makes them all appeal in their own way - from the sunny sand and palm trees of Fern Bay to the dark walls of South City, via two dozen hilly circuits set in middle England's countryside. The biggest failing with the current track selection is not that they're dull to drive round, it's that the environments are dull because they're not different enough. We have Blackwood, Aston, and Westhill. If S2 ever includes any more circuits, we do not need another hilly, sweeping British track with a palette of greens and greys and browns. ;) There needs to be more to capture people's imaginations - I don't mean abandoning LFS's realistic colours and designs, but with more obvious variety of locations to appeal to more people. A circuit in the dusty U.S. midwest; or among the heat and jarring concrete of the urbanised areas of the U.S. west coast; or a punishing Canadian circuit with a lot of water about. ;) Or something obviously Scandinavian, with a low sun peeking over the top of thick, dark forests; or a chilly, bleak, technical circuit that's clearly identified by East European architecture of the nearby town.

Phew, that's me done. :razz:

ayrton senna 87

5th December 2005, 19:58

wow

RichardTowler

5th December 2005, 21:15

Strobe, I did say it was an alpha both in the intro and the end, and said that I will look back on s2 final when it is released. On the cost, I actually said it might seem exspensive, because you are buying into a wip game, it costs as much as a full release game, most are now £24.99.

I did pay £24 and I didn't feel I got value for money over S1 which is why I included that in the review.

I reviewed LFS as I do all games I review, for what it is trying to be, LFS isn't like other games on the market, so I will review differently, you cannot say compare a score of GTL with LFS, because of the huge difference in the titles.

LFS got an average score, not because its worse than GTR, not because its worse than GTL, or rfactor, or any other sim, it got an average score because in its current state Live For Speed is failing its self, on many levels, and these where stated in the review.

Overall I just don't think LFS is as good as it should/could be, and the score reflects that, if LFS had the more complete physics, sound and some visual improvements the score would be higher, we are talking about a 7 which is where at this stage I feel LFS should be.

Nick_ll

5th December 2005, 21:15

I'm not sure, but I think it means that we are really cool and we are more right than Richard Towler.

Actually I believe it means you are the 3 slowest people to understand that by "feel of the sim" Richard doesn't mean "feel of the ffb through the wheel" but rater "feel of immersion the whole game that is lacking because it doesn't feature good enough sounds and has computerized starts and doesn't allow for a full race package with practice-qual-race"

You see that kind of thing. "Maybe your controller settings are wrong" will not change anything in the fact there is a lack of immersion feel. When you're in the racecars in LFS, you don't feel like you're in a racecar. That's the "feel" in question. Richard is not talking about the feel through his steering wheel.

Nick_ll

5th December 2005, 21:22

we are talking about a 7 which is where at this stage I feel LFS should be.
And considering LFS in its S2 final stage would be in version 0.6, I would like to point out that giving it a 7/10 score (being 70%, 0.7) would be like saying LFS is outdoing itself.
However, for that LFS would need some graphics updates, namely the cockpits of the racecars, textured tire sidewalls and wheels, bolts and misc stuff like that, then sounds and fixes in the physics where applies (in no particular order, as long as they all are before S2 final).

deggis

5th December 2005, 21:22

Tweaker

5th December 2005, 21:27

He gave it a score... a score for how S2 (in its current development stage) feels to him. He said so at then end of post #25.

It is not a score for S2 final (obviously), he's said that many times already.

RichardTowler

5th December 2005, 21:28

I think the review would be better without a score at all. Why did you give a score? Obviously the point you are making here isn't clearly enough made in the review, otherwise you wouldn't be here explaining it.

actually its because people have not read the review :) and I don't mind discussing it in further detail.

axus

5th December 2005, 21:31

Actually I believe it means you are the 3 slowest people to understand that by "feel of the sim" Richard doesn't mean "feel of the ffb through the wheel" but rater "feel of immersion the whole game that is lacking because it doesn't feature good enough sounds and has computerized starts and doesn't allow for a full race package with practice-qual-race"

You see that kind of thing. "Maybe your controller settings are wrong" will not change anything in the fact there is a lack of immersion feel. When you're in the racecars in LFS, you don't feel like you're in a racecar. That's the "feel" in question. Richard is not talking about the feel through his steering wheel.

Oh but it could also mean you're the 3 guys who defend LFS the most without asking you the right question of "what could we improve here" (as opposed to "let's lick to ass no matter how bad it tastes"). :smileypul

I feel very much immersed in any car I drive in LFS which is more than I can say for GTR or any of the other big titles out there. I do not deny that there is room for improvement but I feel that the fact that LFS is among the best in terms of immersion into the car is ommited in the review. (What I am trying to say is that despite not being perfect LFS is better than most and still being worked on.) I do not lick ass and have VERY high expectations for the final release of S2 which is why I believe it is being treated unfairly.

Nick_ll

5th December 2005, 21:34

Fordman

5th December 2005, 21:37

But I'll save that post of yours and quote you on it when you say "I'm waiting for S3"

Arn't we all :D

Nick_ll

5th December 2005, 21:51

Ok I'll remove that comment. I prefer the discussion to continue in a civilized manner.

I'll just say that I fully agree with what is said in the review, including the score.

The post I made just after the one you quoted might be more interesting to quote for the discussion tho.

axus

5th December 2005, 21:58

Ok let's wait then. But I'll save that post of yours and quote you on it when you say "I'm waiting for S3" when your high expectations for S2 are not met in S2 final.

That said, I'll stand corrected if the devs prove me wrong and do actually improve both physics, sounds AND graphics before S2 final, which I doubt they will somehow, unless S2 final is in another year's time.

Do you honestly think that there is that much work that needs to be done? We are talking physics - ~3months perhaps. In the mean time Eric could be working (and maybe is already) on higher resolution textures and more detailed car interiors. I have a sneaky suspision that the textures released with Alpha aren't the full size ones that Eric has because they do not even include MIP maps (despite the existing MIP map support) and they have just been thrown in there to save size in the release. (This is only a guess). Then comes Scawen's part in the graphics - the implementation of DX9 shaders which also cannot take that long, my guess would be a month or so. Sounds would also take another 1 month or so (not a huge amount of work IMHO, once you have good samples). Small features and updates that have been requested could take some more time but they are stuff that goes at the end as I understand it and before them we could have a great physics, sound and graphics engine. Then comes BETA and if ALPHA is anything to go by, BETA will hardly have any bugs that need fixing before the final is released. If I were the devs, this is how I would allocate my time because this is what the community seems to expect from S2 Final. I do not expect them to follow what I have said but this is my guess as to the path they will take.

Tweaker

5th December 2005, 22:08

We'll only know until we get reports from the devs on what they actually are doing. If not... it will just be another guessing game like in pre-S2 days. And those got many assumptions in the wrong direction, terrible. Now, it seems the devs have a huge burden on their shoulders to make us something special, since S2 is not completely what we thought it would be like... that... and they note it is not S2 final (which is kind of reassuring in a way to know that this bare-boned-S2-alpha version is not the full version)

HOWEVER, it also shows HOW much progress they made for almost a years waiting time, which makes me think that until we get anything special and high-quality, or fixed physics, it feels to me it won't be very soon at all, unless we get a peep from the devs on a plan, what S2 will have, something! :zombie: The goal of S2 is has never been completely told to us, so we still linger, wondering if anything will be told... so we have more hope....

They are only 3 developers, specifically Scawen doing all the main coding himself and Eric doing visual aspects of it... so it is dependant on them. They probably know there is no rush, no deadline, but hopefully they understand that other simulations are rapidly casting a larger shadow on ours, which leaves us in these kinds of discussions... "Will S2 final be a hit or failure??" --- Arghhh, this kind of pain of not knowing has always been with us, I just wonder when we get our next orgasmic jump and hoot sessions when something special comes out for S2.

My holidays would be happy if I got a present from the devs, like the MRT last year :)

thisnameistaken

5th December 2005, 22:09

axus

5th December 2005, 22:26

How did you arrive at your estimates for development time of DX9 shaders, physics improvements, sound and so on? Have you personal experience of doing these things and an intimate knowledge of the existing LFS codebase?

As far as I'm aware, none of us here are capable of making anything more than a wild guess at how long these things will take to develop.

The guess for the physics came based on something Scawen said when asked about patch Q and why it doesn't feature physics updates. The DX9 shaders were a bit of a blind guess. The remeaining sound effects as I understand will be sampled, so no complex coding involved - just if this, then play this with this pitch bend and frequency increase and so on.

Bob Smith

5th December 2005, 23:05

Well if LFS makes the timeline you are dreaming up Axus, that sounds great to me. In the end we can only wait and see.

To the review, while it did comment (and rightly-so) on the poorer sides of LFS, I don't think it commented enough of the better sides. There are no mentioned of the greatly improved physics, pit stops, or online driver changes that are now possible with S2.

Oh, and as before, I still hate the "pointless left/right turns" bit for the new tracks! I knew I'd read that before somewhere. I fail to see what is so different between the tracks in LFS and other games (apart from them actually having been built... but we're hoping an eccentric billionaire will sort that bit out for us :D).

And finally, as for the RWD cars handling very spinny, I can't agree there. I've just started giving my friend lessons with LFS, using my wheel and pedals, and after a few hours practise he's LOVING the LX4 and it's sweet handling. He's not fast yet, but for someone who's never played race sims before I think that shows LFS in a good light. He was using my Easy Race sets though, I think it would be beneficial for better default sets in LFS (which certainly don't help in giving first impressions).

thisnameistaken

5th December 2005, 23:18

The guess for the physics came based on something Scawen said when asked about patch Q and why it doesn't feature physics updates. The DX9 shaders were a bit of a blind guess.

I don't know... If S2 is done and looking polished in six months I'll be very pleased, if not I won't be too surprised.

The remeaining sound effects as I understand will be sampled, so no complex coding involved - just if this, then play this with this pitch bend and frequency increase and so on.

I think the synthed engine noises could do with more work too, add a couple more oscillators for bits rattling or generate harmonics at certain rates to represent sympathetic vibrations from other bits of the car, maybe mix in different waveforms when the engine's damaged or in an uncomfortable rev range and so on.

-wes-

5th December 2005, 23:20

The review is mostly fair. It may have the best driving experience, but it des not have the best racing experience. I dont feel like I'm about to start a important race , i'm just tooling around with some other people.

Have you played call of duty2? Its total sensory overload, you almost feel like your there.
This is what lfs could do with, its very hardcore and just about the car physics at the moment.

Lfs does not need to sell its soul in order to give a better experience.

I still love it to bits though.

Gunn

5th December 2005, 23:54

The underlying message I get from that review is "don't buy LFS, it's crappy and a rip off".

I think many people just don't realise what they have here. LFS is not just a piece of software. How many of you have gleaned value and enjoyment simply from being a part of the process, watching LFS evolve and develop? Even without driving a single lap LFS offers so much interaction and diverse interest that no other title ever has or is ever likely to. And the devs have stated quite clearly from the beginning what their process and goals were likely to be, including the allowance for delays and developmental evolution.

I've been getting my money's worth since way before I even shelled out one single cent for this sim. I don't see it as a "game" and I can't compare it with any software I've ever purchased. It could be argued that LFS is the only sim, since none of the other "sims" are even attempting to create a comprehensive physics model and all lack the philosophy that Scawen and Co. have built this project on. Yes, there are a few in the works that may show promise, but recent titles like GTRse and roflFactor do nothing to raise hopes about future sims.

LFS is the future of race sims. It is not a simulation, it is a simulator. LFS has very few peers and perhaps the only title that even deserves to be compared to it is our old mate GPL, which lacks the sophistication of LFS in every aspect, but considering its age it really was quite an achievement.

What really boggles the mind though, is how anyone who appreciates and understands the goals of LFS would go out of their way to paint it in such a negative light. Constructive feedback is all well and good, but this review is just damaging in my opinion. It almost seems like an attempt to chide the devs into making changes based on that review, which would be even more astounding considering that most of the problems mentioned have already been considered by the devs (many of them long ago) as most of us already know and as has been discussed ad nauseum. So I have to ask: what is this review supposed to achieve?

The big saving grace for me personally is that I don't give a rat's bum who likes or buys LFS because I know it is the pioneer of true race sims. If Papy could have developed GPL when PCs were as capable as today I'm sure they would have gone much further than they did. I can assume this because it is obvious that they were avoiding the arcade model like the plague and going for a true simulator rather than an arcadish simulation.

There is only one online race simulator, it is very inexpensive and represents amazing value for money, it is under development and continues to improve in every way. I don't mind if it takes years to complete, what a ride it has been so far!

th84

6th December 2005, 00:01

:thumb: wow!! well said!! can i use part of that in my sig??:D

Blowtus

6th December 2005, 00:09

fairly harsh, but generally balanced and valid, review I thought. Clearly the good bits just aren't good enough for this reviewer :)
The rwd physics issues in lfs are largely able to be corrected with setup, but the setups that do fix them are not setups you'd find on any 'real' road going car, so there seem to be clear flaws there.
A little more time in the game, or online racing, may have given a better judgement for the sound. It's true that it doesn't *sound* amazing, but it *works* very well, echo's, rumbles, pitch variations... it all makes sense and adds to the experience. It just lacks the 'I'm driving a stonking v8 race car' feel...

RichardTowler

6th December 2005, 00:16

Hallen

6th December 2005, 00:26

There are no mentioned of the greatly improved physics, pit stops, or online driver changes that are now possible with S2.

He did mention the driver changes :D

I think the review does unnecessarily leave the reader with a negative impression of the program. The review does state his own opinion. The comment about the price is definitely his impression, as stated on this forum. It is his opinion and that is fine. However, MY opinion is that I have gotten way more value out of this product than it cost me. I cannot even begin to count the hours I have spent using the product, it leaves a huge smile on my face, every time. That's value. You can't compare that to the value that other "titles" might provide. But, that is my opinion.

After thinking about this for a while, I personally believe that a review should be an article that points out the perceived strengths and weaknesses of a product. It should be written from the point of view of current and potential customers. If the writer wants to state his/her opinion, they should say "In my opinion..." and fire away. This provides differentiation between an expert evaluation and a personal impression. This article has a lot of merritt. However, it could use about another 500 words to fully flesh out the points instead of leaving them hanging like they are.

I guess it is an insider thing. Those of us who are insiders can complain about different aspects of the product amongst ourselves with no problems (well a few red faces maybe:D ), but a review like this is like airing dirty laundry to the world. Not enough explanation for all the negative comments and not enough time spent on the up side.

Gunn

6th December 2005, 00:29

Gun, you might want to open your eyes and close your anus. But seriously, with that post you have just given yourself away as a typical 'nothing can touch what I like, I'am 100% right and the other is 100% wrong' that is so often seen in communities. You also try to distance yourself from the 'rest' at the bottom of your post, which is another typical thing to do, as a bonus you name GTR and rfactor differently :)

If you think the only thing you can compare to LFS is GPL, you really have not lived, I'd say LFS can learn from even GT4 on the PS2. I'd also say comparing GPL means you are one of the old elite GPL players.

I'm not rating what LFS could be, I'am rating what LFS IS TODAY, that is the whole point of the review and as the development progresses I will keep coming back and doing further articles on the website about it.

I'm not just a sim racer, i play all types of games, and I can see how far sim racing in general lags behind, racing sims are still quake 2 era, while unreal 3 engine is about to give it to everyone in the face, it is that far behind.GPL does not compare to LFS, but to omit it would be a crime because it has what modern titles lack. GT4 is an arcade racer, nothing more. It sounds like that is what you enjoy, good for you! Your review is damaging to LFS, but luckily for you the devs are in control and the end product, I am sure, will be to your liking. The writing is on the wall, you just need to learn how to read.

Hyperactive

6th December 2005, 00:33

LFS certainly has something special, which every other sims lack. I would still restrict calling LFS the sim of future.

Even the earliest lfs versions had the sliding feeling, which is still there. Of course it's getting better all the time, S2 physics were defenately better but the margin was not big. One thing is certain and that is that LFS needs desperately more stuff. May it be more tracks/cars I would not agree, but the single player mode needs more content, and there are still many many small glitches which should have been coded in way before S2 alpha release. These are the starting system, replay buttons, setup organizing, replay organizing and ... you get it.

No way I'm going to say to the devs what they should do or they should do it, it's their game and their own product. But concentrating purely on the physics will just make the other missing features really stand out. And this all comes to one point: How can the physics be so great when the other content is missing or looking like painted with crayons. (maybe a bit harsh said)

But it is still is the best sim for me. . And I love it with every cell of my body. But I'm still looking for the perfect match.

PS. this calling LFS simulator or a sim instead of game that you play is really starting to bother me. I don't know about you but I have LFS installed on normal computer with screen, keyboard... The only ways I can get feedback from the car is through monitor, force feedback in wheel or from speakers. I get no g-forces and I am watching a computer screen listening to the engine sounds (it sounds like mad bees, not that it bothers me, but it reduces the immersion I might have, along with the fictional cars and tracks...). If I am looking at LFS or doom3 at the screen what's the difference?

Hallen

6th December 2005, 00:36

Gun, you might want to open your eyes and close your anus. But seriously, with that post you have just given yourself away as a typical 'nothing can touch what I like, I'am 100% right and the other is 100% wrong' that is so often seen in communities. You also try to distance yourself from the 'rest' at the bottom of your post, which is another typical thing to do, as a bonus you name GTR and rfactor differently :)
Hmm, now you go off on a personal attack. You published a review, you should have thicker skin than that.

If you think the only thing you can compare to LFS is GPL, you really have not lived, I'd say LFS can learn from even GT4 on the PS2. I'd also say comparing GPL means you are one of the old elite GPL players.
Gun was stating his opinion, just like you did in your "review". Why does that warrant an attack from you?

I'm not rating what LFS could be, I'am rating what LFS IS TODAY, that is the whole point of the review and as the development progresses I will keep coming back and doing further articles on the website about it.
OK, but lets work on your style a bit between here and there.

I'm not just a sim racer, i play all types of games, and I can see how far sim racing in general lags behind, racing sims are still quake 2 era, while unreal 3 engine is about to give it to everyone in the face, it is that far behind.
Good for you and spoken like a true gamer. To the rest of us, frame rate and accurate representation of the physics are much, much more important than eye candy. Sure, other games have lots of stuff that blows up, but we are not evaluating them here. Yes, we would like a better representation of the real world in the graphics, and we would like better sounds, but that is not really the point.

I think that what is disapointing is that you may have missed the whole point of this product, even though you have raced with us online. :shrug:

Hyperactive

6th December 2005, 00:42

GPL does not compare to LFS, but to omit it would be a crime because it has what modern titles lack. GT4 is an arcade racer, nothing more. It sounds like that is what you enjoy, good for you! Your review is damaging to LFS, but luckily for you the devs are in control and the end product, I am sure, will be to your liking. The writing is on the wall, you just need to learn how to read.

So everything in LFS is better that in GT4? It has many things I'd like to see in LFS, but physics isn't one and tuning and building isn't another. GPL can be compared to LFS, it just tries to simulate very different thing limited by it's age. Still it is years ahead and would be even today. LFS is too, it's physics model is unique but it's missing those small and some bigger things to really shine. Don't expect that we get every realistic and all great things when S3 comes out. It's just a sequel to S2, including most of the stuff already seen.

Hyperactive

6th December 2005, 00:45

***everything in his last post***

Well, I don't see any attacks, Both are just defending their opinions. :)

Now I defenately go to sleep :sleep2: :twirl:

Resound

6th December 2005, 01:00

Richard, one thing you may find if you invest more time in the game is that the standard setups aren't all that great. (pause for the howls of "but I use the 'race1' setup and it's fantastic"...it's not, but it's better than the other standard setup) I personally agree that the breakaway behaviour of the tyres is very soft and that a somewhat less forgiving traction/slip curve would make the car much more interesting. I'd certainly prefer it if they squirmed around a bit more. Having said that, my own setups can exhibit a degree of slip and grab so it's not all "driving on ice" as some would have it. Also, a lot of the standard setups can be extremely loose depending on how you drive. I usually back the camber, the rear compression damping and the rear sway bar off a fair bit and that generally results in a more neutral attitude for the car. In other words I generally get both understeer and oversteer from the car depending how I drive it. This is understandably a frustration for someone who's just starting out, but then fiddling with setups can be part of the fun. If it's not part of the fun for you, asking if anyone has a decent setup for a given car when you get into a server usually results in at least one person giving you their setup (they can be transferred online).

This underscores what makes LFS as good as it is, and you did touch on it somewhat. You looked at the basic netcode and LFS world and noted how well it works. To take that further, the degree to which people are prepared to help each other out within the LFS community is its real strength. Similarly, the developers are active within the forums and provide feedback and listen to what the community are saying to a degree that I've not seen in any other game. The driving feel and immersion levels are just one part of the game, albeit a very large and important part; but if you played the game offline or only in the demo servers and never frequented the forum you'd miss out on a vitally important part of what LFS is. Certainly, there are braindead T1 wreckers but the clean drivers, the teams and groups like CRC (http://www.cleanracersclub.org/) more than make up for that. While, as you said, the former can't really be attributed to any particular aspect of the game, the latter are part of the community that's grown around the game. Again, this isn't something that is apparent immediately, but which becomes more and more a part of the game the more you play it.

Most of your criticisms have some merit, although looking at your online stat demonstrates that there are a lot of tracks that you haven't yet seen, unless you've covered a lot of tarmac offline. Kyoto Ring National is one track that comes to mind, as do the longer iterations of Fern Bay. (I personally like FE Black, but then I'm a sucker for the longer tracks.) You did say that you would look at LFS again once the full release of S2 is in place. Do so, but realise that LFS is not something which can adequately be explored in a couple of days. This is probably true of other driving sims and it doesn't fit well into the environment of magazine reviews but that doesn't make it less relevant. We're honestly not as partisan as we seem; there's plenty of threads within this forum criticising one aspect of the game or another. There are some who won't hear a word spoken against the game, but the rest of us recognise the shortcomings, as do the developers.

See you online.

Ardent

6th December 2005, 01:12

hmm, I read the review and have to say, that this is almost exactly the impression I have got so far from LFS.

The text is ok, but the rating (imho) is rather unprofessional. It should be more detailed ratings (graphics, sound, physics ...), then an explanation what is put more emphasis on (physics 40%, graphics 30% ...) and what the single sections are compared to (better/worse than rfactor/gtr ...) and then make a overall rating, thats how it is usually done in tests. Just writing a number under a text does not help anyone because nobody knows, what a 'perfect 10' is for the reviewer.

Shotglass

6th December 2005, 01:16

I'm not just a sim racer, i play all types of games, and I can see how far sim racing in general lags behind, racing sims are still quake 2 era, while unreal 3 engine is about to give it to everyone in the face, it is that far behind.

you really have no idea what youre talking about

S2 physics were defenately better but the margin was not big.

install s1 again and play it for a while ... youll realise how wrong you are with that statement

RichardTowler

6th December 2005, 01:18

attack from you?

was meant to be taken in ermm jest, if thats the right word, nothing serious don't worry tried to make a point by maybe not done right eh :)

spoken like a true gamer though? again this is the attitude I talk about, so its ok to have terrible visuals, terrible sounds etc, as long as the physics are half done and they say its meant to be a sim? (this is not thoughts on lfs, just to get a point across)

Visuals in a sim MEAN ALOT, not just graphics but the way the physics engine transfers feeling across to the player, this is why I compared to nr2003, because nr2003 does this extremely well for what it is.

@ Resound, i actually played LFS alot more than you think, and I mean, alot more, infact i spent more than a few weeks with it (I had issues with some of my online experences saving in my profile too, I think I posted about it a month or so ago not sure), of course most of it offline because I did not know too many people with private servers. I found most of the online racing on the open servers to be a complete mess at times, getting past turn 1 was a rare feat like you say, but this is the same of all open servers in any game I've ever played.

I tried every single car out, and every single track combo, some more than others but I made sure i gave everything a try. I also gave the setup stuff a try, and did notice some strange values I could use that really shouldn't of worked, although I'am no techincal expert on real life car setups, but i did find it was made 10x worse in the f08, although this is well known and probally features the least complete physics out of all the cars.

Rotary

6th December 2005, 01:35

I have to agree a lot with that review (except the sound part ;) not all sounds are samples in LFS :razz: ) although for me netcode is far more important than polished sounds and physics and I would have scored LFS a little higher (6.5 or a 7)... that's just my opinion however.

LFS S2 Alpha was not the revolutionary version of S1 I was expecting. I guess it was over hyped. The reason why I play LFS is because it provides what I want, close racing on a solid netcode. Since I mostly only play online in any game I want the netcode to be solid. I own GTR but it does nothing but waste HD space ATM, only because its netcode left a bitter $80AUD taste in my mouth.

I think its unrealistic for anyone to think 5/10 is unfair... its completely fair, its just a reflection of the reviewers opinion of this title. He doesn't have to like/love everything he reviews, if he did then I'd be questioning his creditability ;) (can you say endorsement cheque? :p ).

And at least Richard didn't have a go at the community like that other review... now that guy is someone without creditability, what kind of nut insults the entire LFS community when he only tried the demo anyway??

Gabkicks

6th December 2005, 01:50

But still... a 5/10 score is WAY too low it's not even funny. In my books 5 = pure garbage and that LFS certainly is not.
i agree. i was thinking "man this guy must really suck at driving" as i was reading the article... but after realizing an alien wrote it i shut up :D.:shrug: i guess he is right on some levels.

:edit: what do you think of RBR richard? :edit:

J.B.

6th December 2005, 02:20

While I agree with some points made in the review, I don't like the tone of it. It almost sounds as if the reviewer feels somehow cheated by the devs. As if he feels the devs haven't been working as hard as they should have. As if they wanted too much money from him for their "average" product. As if they were not worthy of his standards.

There are a lot of things that can be improved of course but as far as I'm concerned LFS is the leader of the pack ATM. You can't critisize a small, hard-working dev team this harshly when there is no better product out there.

I'm not just a sim racer, i play all types of games, and I can see how far sim racing in general lags behind, racing sims are still quake 2 era, while unreal 3 engine is about to give it to everyone in the face, it is that far behind.

What on earth is this supposed to mean? Do you have a clue what an advanced understanding of physics is required to program a real-time, interactive vehicle dynamics simulation? Do you know how tyres work? Did you know that hardly anybody does? Tyre technology has been known more as black art than a science in the past. You can't say that people working at this level are on any kind of "Quake 2 level". Or at least explain what you mean.

B2B@300

6th December 2005, 02:40

I have bought and play LFS almost every other day for a year and a half because of two things

1. Online functionality of LFS (i.e. Net code and Online User Interactivity)
2. Physics (even though they are incomplete)

Not because of fancy graphics or multitudes of cars/tracks or immersive game play...

Lower graphics actually opens LFS up to a wider community than otherwise would be possible (although it may turn off some hard core gamers with high end machines) I couldn't count how many interesting people I've met and have raced with that are stuck on low end machines that would not be able to run most of the other current titles on their machines (even at lowest settings).. Also if CPU power has too be allocated for things (as it does) I'd prefer the bulk of it to be for realistic physics well before graphics.. but having said that I always was under the impression that S3 was going to be where all the finishing touches were going to be applied in the audio visual department, as well as ironing out any other remaining bugs in game play…

More car/ tracks I didn't like at first (spread everyone that is online too thin), but that’s improving as time goes by…

Immersive game play.. well that’s up to us as teams and event organiser’s in the LFS community to create :p we've got the tools as in RL (i.e. event location and cars) plenty of real atmosphere can be created without the need for artificial atmosphere.. also the developers have been listening to the community in regards to making it easier and more interesting to have online events…

ysu

6th December 2005, 03:26

I agree with the review almost completely.

On one point: the fast 'dull' tracks my opinion differs tho. I think they're merely wider, faster tracks, they are certainly scarcely interesting in slower cars, but they seem to have been designed for the fastest ones.

I love the FE tracks the best too :thumb:

With the score ... Even tho I feel slightly offended, as I enjoy LFS much more than rFactor or GTR, I think the devs would agree pretty much, note the versioning of the game. It's half done only.

Gabkicks

6th December 2005, 03:35

i like how lfs looks good and runs like a dream on my 9600XT.:thumb: i like the overal graphics of lfs more than gtr. and that game runs alot slower on my pc.

I think its great that the devs are focusing mostly on the physics and not taking shortcuts like other big developers have. in the long run it will pay off.
Even now with the game still being in s2 alpha stage its the best racing game/simulator out imho.

axus

6th December 2005, 05:19

I would like to ask anyone who has been racing LFS for a while how much they enjoyed it when they covered 800Ml online and how much they enjoyed it when they had done 3000Ml online. Offline experience is POINTLESS because it is like playing Quake 4 (or whatever) with no one else on there - no bots (the AI in LFS are rubbish and don't really count for anything - starting from the back of a full grid, a good driver can get to the front in 1 lap) and no other human players. Just you going back and forth in circles, picking up guns and jumping off things and wondering why you aren't immersed in the game and why the maps feel dull. Please. If you review any game in this manner, it will get a rubbish rating. If you review other games like this, then you are a really rubbish reviewer and you can easily miss the point and if you don't then why the double standard?

We run 3 weekly events on the South African LFS Server - a Lites series (Road Cars excluding RAC, LX6 and FZ5) Sunday mornings, a Hardcore series (all other cars) on Tuesday evenings and a Blackwood GTi night on Thursdays. They are all done like real races. Qualifying followed by a long race, no mid-race join(server option if you didn't pick it up) bullshit. Joining one of those races makes your heart beat faster before the race begins, it feels like it actually means something - like you are a professional racing driver and this is where you make a living. Driving with other people makes you concentrate on driving LFS and that is when you are immersed into the car. In single player, you cannot remain immersed completely for more than 5 laps. YES, I ADMIT LFS HAS BAD POINTS, but I won't accept the good ones being criticised by someone who hasn't experienced it properly. Race online and the tracks are 100x better, you are 100x more immersed. Like you would be, playing a multiplayer game of Q4 compared to going around a completely empty map.

This is why I went against your two comments regarding the tracks and the feel and immersion of LFS being poor, but what do I know? I have been racing LFS for 2 years and I have hardly touched another game since I started racing it. And what does my brother know? A few laps in LFS helped him learn new driving techniques and use them to take off 3s from his time around a near-by track on open track days.

Hallen

6th December 2005, 05:37

was meant to be taken in ermm jest, if thats the right word, nothing serious don't worry tried to make a point by maybe not done right eh :)
'Nuf said :)

spoken like a true gamer though? again this is the attitude I talk about, so its ok to have terrible visuals, terrible sounds etc, as long as the physics are half done and they say its meant to be a sim? (this is not thoughts on lfs, just to get a point across)

Visuals in a sim MEAN ALOT, not just graphics but the way the physics engine transfers feeling across to the player, this is why I compared to nr2003, because nr2003 does this extremely well for what it is.

Yes visuals mean a lot. I 100% agree. To me, it is most important to pick up the track features, braking points, turn-in points, and other visual cues that let you know where you are. Then the way the visuals react to what the car is doing is important too. I have driven (sort of) some very sophisticated simulators in my time, some of the best the world has to offer, and LFS does a marvelous job with the visuals. I think the car vibrations in GTR are way over-done. I get a headache after driving it for just a few minutes. LFS is somewhat customizable with the head tilt and lean settings and so-forth. I think this works pretty darned well.

Yes, there is some cheesy stuff in there too. The drivers suite and hands are not very good for example. But to me, this is eye candy. It does not hinder my ability to drive the sim. There is some atmosphere missing too, but again, to me, that does not detract from the driving. I finish a league race and I am dripping sweat, exhausted and exhilarated at the same time. What a blast. I have even jerked so bad a couple of times I actually ripped the wheel off of my desk because of unexpected accidents. That is how focused I get on the driving.

So, I guess I would disagree with you about the visuals in LFS. I think there is enough there now to make a very satisfying experience. I think that you have seen some wonderful stuff in other games and expect it to be in every game. I, on the other hand am willing to compromise a certain level of graphics for better online driving with physics that come much closer to realism than anything else I have driven. nr2003 is great, but I prefer road/sports car racing. (And don't tell me those cars don't have twitchy rear ends, they certainly do.) I like GPL, even though I only bought it two years ago, well after its hay-day. But I still prefer the types of cars in LFS. I got started with PS2 GT3 A-Spec, and it was fun for a while, most of the cars feel the same, and the feedback is poor, and there was no online mode, but it drove my interest enough to start searching out a better system. LFS has a way to go on a lot of levels, but getting there IS half the fun. I think we will just have to disagree about the level of the compromise :thumb: Oh, and I do think it was fair of you to give it a 5/10, it is your scale after all. I just wish you would have explained it a bit more.

Boris Lozac

6th December 2005, 08:17

Richard.. man.. you gave it 5/10 like we are talking about some rubish here :pillepall :pillepall ..
Exactly like others said.. The imersion is there, EVEN if the cockpits for example look like 10 year old game.. IT doesn't matter, it's alpha, it's not even completed, and YET i haven't played anything else since S2 demo came out(except RBR).. EVEN if the sounds sound bad, and all other bad things, this game is BETTER then anything else at the moment.. You can't give comments and rating like that, they say it's your review, your opinion, but i say write it in your diary or something, because you can't give it 5/10 on the internet.. It REALLY doesn't deserve that low rating..

detail

6th December 2005, 08:39

I think Richard's attitude is quite evident if he says "Not kissing someone's ass". So he pretends he criticises constructively while we are kissing someone's ass.

As for 5/10 score. Indeed, in many reviews scores are between 6 and 10, once I've seen someone saying "the film's complete crap absolutely not worth watching", giving it 4/10!

But even if the scores are "honest" you have to put a vector of different characteristics into one scalar, and everything depends on the weight coefficient - i.e. what you say is the most important.

So, if you dislike LFS for some reason, just put it into unfavourable conditions - eg. play only offline, drive UF1000 at KY1, and so on. I don't think the review author bothered with putting marks separately for different characteristics, excercising such high-level maths ;), just put a mark he wanted. Anything can be reasoned.

"I'm a sim racer for a few years" - only sim racer? "Horrible low speed traction" - whith what did he compare it? With GPL, NR2003? (incomparable fictional cars from sims not RL) A lot of questionable statements and reasons.

XRRoy

6th December 2005, 08:47

for the most of the points i agree with Richard....S2 isn't as complete as it should be atm. There for it still is alpha. If S2 final is ready with all the improvements in the topic implemented i'm surely it will get a better score:nod:

Jaakko_M

6th December 2005, 10:07

Excellent review.

Fetzo

6th December 2005, 10:16

this is really a decent review. i think the author is right in all aspects expect in the score. i would have given 1-2 points more :).

don't get me wrong, i love lfs, but he is right.

nikimere

6th December 2005, 10:19

I think the review is fair for the current state of the game but the game is still in Alpha. It's unfair that it is reviewed. This review could put people off buying the game and i dont think thats fair for a game thats not even claiming to be finished.
I think the reviewer could have emphasised more the fact that the full game probably wont be release for another 5 years or so. The stage we're at is amazing for a game thats not even half finished yet....

Breizh

6th December 2005, 10:49

I agree with everything in the review, except that the faster tracks are boring. That's just bogus. They might need better scenery or general aesthetics, but the tracks themselves, functionaly, are really good and complete each other very well.
There could've been point-to-point sprints, hillclimbs, roadraces (e.g. IoM TTesque stuff) or a monster Nurb track, but what's already in is plenty to have fun with.

I agree with the immersion being incomplete.. but fanboy or not (i'm not), it's still an alpha.. cut it anyway you like, call it an excuse, but that's just the way the devs are doing it, and the way it should be taken.
When I played pacman against friends, there was no criticism of immersion, it was about playing a good, fun game with friends, and that's what LFS is, at the core.

Blowtus

6th December 2005, 10:51

Huru-aito

6th December 2005, 10:55

Nice review :thumb:

The fact that LFS is still in alpha doesn't change a thing. If a game is available, it's also available for reviewing. Since people are playing LFS why shouldn't reviewers write about it?

LFS is incomplete, yes. But how would a reviewer know what there is to come in the future? How could he write about something that isn't there yet, or even let the things to come affect the score he gives for the game in the state it is at the moment?

I like LFS, I hardly play anything else. It is very good (IMO) but it can (should?) be a lot better.

nikimere

6th December 2005, 10:58

why on earth do people feel 'it's only alpha' is some form of justification? It's a game that people have been paying for and playing for years. There's more to come, great, but this is what we've currently got! What next, someone reviews quake 4 and 'oh, it's only version 1.03, there's patches coming out, you can't review it'??
There is a big difference between Alpha's, Beta's and patches!
I'm sure somewhere another game is currently being developed in an office would we review it? no!
I'm just saying from my point of view that reviewing unfinished games is pointless. The whole point of reviews from a consumers view is to help decide weather you should buy it or not. A review of an un-finished game can damage reputation which will not help when the game is finished.

It's fine if it's reviewed, i just think it should be more clearly stated that it is a work in progress. Maybe the reviewer could have given a bit of background about the development process of LFS.

axus

6th December 2005, 11:05

why on earth do people feel 'it's only alpha' is some form of justification? It's a game that people have been paying for and playing for years. There's more to come, great, but this is what we've currently got! What next, someone reviews quake 4 and 'oh, it's only version 1.03, there's patches coming out, you can't review it'??

ALPHA is very different from Final in many ways. Alpha means that not even all the features are in and it may be very very buggy. In that sense, the LFS Alpha is a good alpha beacuse it is possibly among the most stable Alpha software ever released. Beta means that all the features are in, but there are still bugs floating around. You purchased LFS knowing that there is no official release date for the final (if you read anything before purchasing that is) and even though an alpha may come along at some stage, it is not everything you paid for. Show me what GTR or rFactor Alpha looked like and I doubt it was even playable. True, most big companies will never release an alpha version to the public because they are running behind schedule but S2 Alpha isn't your average alpha either.

RichardTowler

6th December 2005, 11:09

What on earth is this supposed to mean? Do you have a clue what an advanced understanding of physics is required to program a real-time, interactive vehicle dynamics simulation? Do you know how tyres work? Did you know that hardly anybody does? Tyre technology has been known more as black art than a science in the past. You can't say that people working at this level are on any kind of "Quake 2 level". Or at least explain what you mean.

that comment was a general thought on sim racing, not just LFS, I was not saying LFS WAS QUAKE 2 standard, more the community is quake 2 level and perhaps maybe what the community wants isn't aimed much higher than that when it should be.

Breizh

6th December 2005, 11:09

Like I said it's not an excuse.
It's the context it needs to be taken in.
I agree about the community being on the primitive side.. been of that opinion since the first time I read the forums and played online.

xaotik

6th December 2005, 11:13

This thread is starting to be like oval racing - there are even drafting groups forming... :)

axus

6th December 2005, 11:18

that comment was a general thought on sim racing, not just LFS, I was not saying LFS WAS QUAKE 2 standard, more the community is quake 2 level and perhaps maybe what the community wants isn't aimed much higher than that when it should be.

Perhaps I should point out that nikimere races IRL and believes LFS is the one to go for, as he has stated many times in different places? How long has the Race-Sim industry been around? Since the days of GPL and even then it was far from being an industry as such because there was no competition. And how long has the FPS industry been around? This is like going back to 1994 (or whenever it was) and telling everyone that Doom was rubbish. Some people don't want to just sit there and blow the heads of people - something I find mind-numbingly boring for one - but persue their passion (racing for most of the LFS drivers). The fact that the genre isn't as evolved as some others is no reason to call LFS a poor racing simulatior for its time. If you prefer to go and play quake or UT, be my guest.

nikimere

6th December 2005, 11:23

This thread is starting to be like oval racing - there are even drafting groups forming... :)lol!! :thumb:

tailing

6th December 2005, 11:23

I wouldn't call it an unfair review but I think it misses the point of LFS. LFS takes time and I don't think you spent the required amount but that's ok because maybe you shouldn't have to. That's where the philosophies are different, you seem to want something different out of LFS which is fine but there is a reason why I've played LFS for more than 2 years and that's because overall it is outstanding. You say it needs to reach the levels of mainstream game titles, I say that there are very few mainstream titles that reach the level of LFS. I've played video games for 20 years and LFS stopped me playing any other games for near on a year, and that was S1.
I can appreciate your point of view but from my perspective you focus too much on the negatives and not enough on the positives which are far more numerous.
Anyway, with such limited online experience I don't think you can give an accurate representation of LFS but then I don't expect everyone to put that much effort into it and to a certain extent if you don't like it you just don't like it. In that respect your review is probably accurate for the general gaming public who value similar things and don't have the time to invest in it.

L(Oo)ney

6th December 2005, 11:23

ALPHA is very different from Final in many ways. Alpha means that not even all the features are in and it may be very very buggy.

So, what are you expecting for the full S2 release?

Everyone who doesnt agree with the review, seems to think S2 final will be totally different to the current alpha, so, you tell us what will be different..

Personally, i dont think it'll be all that different from what we have now. And brilliant physics cannot make up for what it is still missing in LFS, so i think the score given is just about right.

nikimere

6th December 2005, 11:30

axus

6th December 2005, 11:42

So, what are you expecting for the full S2 release?

Everyone who doesnt agree with the review, seems to think S2 final will be totally different to the current alpha, so, you tell us what will be different..

Personally, i dont think it'll be all that different from what we have now. And brilliant physics cannot make up for what it is still missing in LFS, so i think the score given is just about right.

If you had read my previous posts you would know that I expect quite a lot from S2 Final in the physics department (most of my hopes are already fulfilled, just low-speed tyre model, aero fixes and extra grip on the racing line is pretty much gonna cover it but more is always welcome). In terms of sounds and graphics I expect an almost complete work-over because they are far behind that of the competition and far behind that which the community has come to expect from LFS. Physics have always been most important, but the other stuff still has to be upto scratch if LFS hopes to be a sales success. I don't think that the devs would release an S2 Final that is a let-down for such a chunk of the community in terms of graphics and sound and I doubt they would want to release a 100MB graphics patch half way to S3 so S2 Final is where they would want to release it. Only polishing off the graphics in ~2007/8 would put LFS far behind the times.

@nikimere - you have a point about the review not explaining the development process of LFS properly. A review like this can make LFS suffer severely because of people not knowing this.

tristancliffe

6th December 2005, 11:42

REVIEWED FOR THE FIRST TIME - GTR3

This game is in the early development stages so what I write may change before the final release.
The sound is virtually non-existent, just a light buzzing from the speakers. This is best cured by turning the speakers off, or playing music. The graphics are extremely outdated, with just 0 polygons used for cars and tracks and no textures. It is believed this will be increased for the final version though. Netcode is great. I detected no high pings throughout the game. Being a racing game, immersion and physics are the defining bits, and here GTR3 falls on it's face. The physics are probably great but without mass, friction, animation or any real time behaviour it's hard to say. The immersion remains as good as any other ISI based game despite this - you really feel like you overpaid for a mediocre product. No other 'sim' can make you feel this more. As I said it's a very early alpha stage, so don't read too much into the review. It'll probably get better. Final Score 4/10.

L(Oo)ney

6th December 2005, 11:45

I dont think that LFS S2 Final should even be reviewed unless it is explained that it is NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT!

But they are selling S1/S2/S3 as seperate games, you can either buy S1, S2, or when S3 comes, all of it.

If they are selling them as seperate games, then reviewing them as seperate games is fine, imo.

All i can say is he's reviewing what we have now, and for what we do have now, i think his score/some of his opinions is justified.

axus

6th December 2005, 11:48

But they are selling S1/S2/S3 as seperate games, you can either buy S1, S2, or when S3 comes, all of it.

If they are selling them as seperate games, then reviewing them as seperate games is fine, imo.

All i can say is he's reviewing what we have now, and for what we do have now, i think his score/some of his opinions is justified.

Anyone can justify any score. Depends how much weight you put on the good bits and how much you put on the bad bits. An NFSU driver would probably give LFS 1/10. The point everyone is trying to make is that the score is not explained therefore people can read the review and get the wrong impression about LFS.

nikimere

6th December 2005, 11:51

All i can say is he's reviewing what we have now, and for what we do have now, i think his score/some of his opinions is justified.
I didn't say it wasn't justified, i agree with the review. It should though explain the development process of LFS. Reviews can and do put people off the game, i dont want people put off a game thats going to improve greatly.

L(Oo)ney

6th December 2005, 11:54

Anyone can justify any score. Depends how much weight you put on the good bits and how much you put on the bad bits. An NFSU driver would probably give LFS 1/10. The point everyone is trying to make is that the score is not explained therefore people can read the review and get the wrong impression about LFS.

Did you read the review?

He made it perfectly clear. Crap sounds, not the best graphics, no feeling of been "at the races", lots of things still missing ect ect ect

Read it again and im sure you'll see why it got the score it did. But the score isnt that important, some of his comments are.

If you had read my previous posts you would know that I expect quite a lot from S2 Final in the physics department (most of my hopes are already fulfilled, just low-speed tyre model, aero fixes and extra grip on the racing line is pretty much gonna cover it but more is always welcome). In terms of sounds and graphics I expect an almost complete work-over because they are far behind that of the competition and far behind that which the community has come to expect from LFS.

I think you're going to be dissapointed once s2 finally comes.. I dont see any chance of them doing all that before an S2 release, unless they plan on holding the release back until 2010.

axus

6th December 2005, 12:02

RichardTowler

6th December 2005, 12:12

Yes, I read it. The score, as you say is not important to those of us who love LFS, but for someone reading the review it can even stop them from bothering to read it. Also I disagree with some of his points - the lack of feedback for one and the poor tracks for another. There are two points I am trying to make here. The review has a misleading score and LFS is better than what he discribed purely because he hadn't put in enough online milage to make a fair review.

how is it a misleading score, the score represents my own feelings as where I feel LFS currently is, why way of scoring games is to give them a score based on what I think it deserves for what the product I''am reviewing is.

As for online experence, I played it enough to know the following

1. Online code is excellent
2. Races can be excellent
3. Races can be awful
4. LFS World is amazing

Just because its a good online experence, doesn't make up for the physics, sound, lack of race feeling, or anything else. as I said, I spent alot of time with LFS. more than most games and it is something I will come back too, it wasn't if i just picked up S2 and had never driven LFS before.

Boris Lozac

6th December 2005, 12:14

As i said, he should wrote it to his litlle diary, and not on the internet, so the whole world can see it.. When i see scores like this, no matter what, movies/games.. i don't even bother reading it, because i assume it must be horific for such a low score.. But in the feature i won't jugde by the scores anymore, because i see that people don't seem to know what they are talking about, and don't deserve that job.
"no feeling of being at the races" or whatever..?! :pillepall the only game i actually feel being there, but sure there is lots of room for improvement..
If this game have blur effects, neon lights under the car, he would surelly rate it couple of scores higher..

Hyperactive

6th December 2005, 12:14

install s1 again and play it for a while ... youll realise how wrong you are with that statement

Maybe I will. But I'm only talking about physics and by that I mean about the feel of the car. And the feeling is still the same.

I would like to ask anyone who has been racing LFS for a while how much they enjoyed it when they covered 800Ml online and how much they enjoyed it when they had done 3000Ml online. Offline experience is POINTLESS because it is like playing Quake 4 (or whatever) with no one else on there ...

I agree to that 800 miles online isn't maybe enough, but he says he have driven a lot offline too. Maybe he is like those (sick) hotlappers that can drive single laps from dawn 'till dusk. :) But this is exactly what I was feeling after 800 miles - couldn't drive rwd cars, except XRT, so I drove FXR mostly. The powerful rwd cars just felt totally unnatural and evil as I was trying to get the car accelerating out of the corners and suddenly the car just spinned.

The rwd cars demand a lot in LFS - may it be that the physics are lacking some much but in general you have to drive them a lot to get used to their handling - which is different that in any other sim.

I'm not just a sim racer, i play all types of games, and I can see how far sim racing in general lags behind, racing sims are still quake 2 era, while unreal 3 engine is about to give it to everyone in the face, it is that far behind.

Agree. But the cold hard physics are essential for a good sim, and a good sim can be excellent with very little content. What do the current hi-end 1st person shooters (modern quakes, if you allow :)) have what LFS needs?

Platinum pete

6th December 2005, 12:24

Well its the most fun ive ever had with a 5/10 game or any other rated game for that matter so i guess i just have low standards...

The only thing that has come out of this review that im not happy with is the fact that new customers will be put off by that score, and i think thats rather cruel considering what has been achieved with this title.

Regards Pete

RichardTowler

6th December 2005, 12:25

It was not about not been able to drive the RWD cars, it was why they felt the way they do, which took the 'reward' factor out of LFS, when driving LFS you do not feel you are picking up a car and driving it, you feel you are driving to an invisible limit, driving blind to a certain degree.

As I said in the review, this is hard to pin point, but I feel its physics, but also, the way the sim transfers what the physics are doing to the player, for example, imagine watching real life footage on tv and you driving it behind a TV, you couldn't feel that level of immersion from just that. You have to put things into the 'sim' to represent certain feelings, so when you slam on the brakes you feel that power of braking, when you turn into a corner you feel that grip, the tires pushing and than the tires losing the grip.

I just didn't get this in LFS because it feels so weak, visually, sounds, and just general atmosphere, the way the cockpit moves event when adjusted doesn't get that feeling across.

If you watch any car tv program, for example, like Top Gear when they really throw the cars about, and compare to LFS, real life has much more anger to it, more bite to it, more weight to it.

This is just my view of course :)

B2B@300

6th December 2005, 12:26

RichardTrowler thx for taking the time to review LFS and giving it some exposure on your website.. Look forward to future reviews when S2 final is released as I respect your opinions even if mine differ somewhat :scratchch as they say any exposure is good publicity even if its not what we want exactly...

Axus take a chill pill :razz: your not only telling Richard how to do his job but now your also instructing Scawen what is good for him and LFS :Looking_a life doesn't always go the way we want it too :x you'll learn this no dought as you go along :D

I'm sure Scawen has gone to bed many a night thinking what is best for LFS and has a strategy in mind for getting to his goals... and if that coincides with what we want as individuals great :tilt: otherwise tuff :shrug: shit happens :D

P.s. I think it takes guts to write such an article and then show up here and defend it kudos for that..
And Axus I'm not trying to offend you here either :) I respect and like you as a person and fellow racer but think your perspective along with some others is getting abit out of wack, but thats just an opinion feel free to take it or leave it :p

Stealthy04

6th December 2005, 12:41

LFS reality check - love that title

indeed it is about time some people have areality check on LFS some people believe or think they 'know' that LFS is the best sim around. indeed LFS is a goodun, but it still has some big issues to be resolved - tyres, dirt grip reduction, more advanced damage, and definatly physics:

since when does running the nose on a formula car, or GTR car as high as possible make a car handle better/go quicker :tilt:

bbuck

6th December 2005, 12:43

Who is this Dick Tosser chap anyway?

axus

6th December 2005, 12:46

Since when does running the nose on a formula car, or GTR car as high as possible make a car handle better/go quicker :tilt:

Since there is an aerodynamics bug which is, as I understand it, going to be fixed in the next physics update in 2-4 months.

Stealthy04

6th December 2005, 13:12

Indeed, i as well as most of the lfs fan base know about the bugs, but what bugs me is that some people, like your self defend LFS at any time they can (which is a good thing) but when people are wrong they cant seem to understand..

take critisism on the chin - its a good aid to improove things.

Hyperactive

6th December 2005, 13:32

dodo.ger

6th December 2005, 14:52

ok, first, the review overall is pretty good, lfs still has some flaws but thats why its called alpha at the moment. exactly cause of that you shouldnt have given it a score imo. and saying that its your subjective opinion doesnt make it better. reviews everytime should be objective otherwise they arent reviews for me, just opinions...

also i personally think there shouldnt be a single player mode, cause everything lfs is about is the online part. i know myself that it isnt easy to find clean servers, but thats just cause not everybody is as experienced as you need to be. its a simulation in the end, not some arcade racing game everybody can play without practice.

in addition your comment "But I'am looking forward to seeing what they are going to do with s2 final, hoping its not just a bunch of further language updates." is just silly cause not everybody on this world speaks english...
maybe you should read the posts made by scawen here: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=2335&page=18&highlight=patch

Cue-Ball

6th December 2005, 16:28

What is with all the whining, bitching, and moaning in this thread? Just last week people were trying to think up ways to get word of this game out. People were talking about getting it into the hands of reviewers and even trying to get Jeremy Clarkson to review it. Well, we now have someone reviewing it and giving exposure to the game and people are bitching because it didn't score high enough! What would you all be saying if Mr. Clarkson had driven the sim and said exactly the same things?

I love LFS as much as anyone else on this forum but the review makes some very good points and I agree with it for the most part (except the 'boring tracks'. Westhill is a dream). Many of us are willing to look past bugs and shortcomings because of our love of the game. However; the average Joe will not. If we want to expand LFS and increase the number of users we need to appeal to a broader audience. This is going to mean prettier graphics (even though I personally think they're outstanding already, so long as you run AA/AF), better sound, and improved physics.

And this whole issue of "it's an alpha" is just stupid. While it may be an alpha product it IS for sale. If someone can purchase it, they should also be able to review it and compare it to other products for sale in the same genre (rF, NR2003, GTR, etc). The alpha status of LFS has been used as a crutch by this community for too long. LFS costs approximately the same as other sims and therefore we should expect as much and directly compare them (again, I personally feel LFS is the best out there or I wouldn't be here, i'd be playing GTR or something). I'm sure that Scawen and company know that their product is good, else they wouldn't have many thousands of us paying for it. I'm sure they also know there is room for improvement. And i'm sure things will improve markedly as we get closer to S2 "final".

I think LFS is the best racing sim on the market by a wide margin. However, it is not without it's faults and this review does the community good by pointing them out. Hopefully this review will fuel the dev's desire to make LFS a better game just that much more. If the sounds and "slipperyness" of the physics are addressed I don't think any other sim will be able to touch LFS.

Fonnybone

6th December 2005, 16:53

LFS is the future of race sims. It is not a simulation, it is a simulator.

Ok, sorry to stick on a detail, but i just don't agree with this Gunn.
In fact, i did some research to make sure i'm not just talking out of
my butt. A simulator, by definition is a machine, it's a physical thing,
while the simulation is the process of simulating, what LFS does.
The simulator is the seat/wheel/cage and computer itself, all of which
respond to outputs from the simulation, a software, LFS. We make words
to better describe and understand each other. If we all go using our
own definitions, what's the point of having words ?! :)

http://www.answers.com/simulator
http://www.answers.com/simulation

Ok, again sorry for being nerdy there. More on-topic, i also agree with
just about everything in the review (except the personal comments on
the tracks with are not very objective imo). What i'd like to add is that
i always felt LFS was playing catch up since it never manages to improve
as fast as the industry/competitors. Heck some newer games had time to
'steal' ideas from LFS, make a whole freaking game, release it, have it
being reviewed and they are probably working on another sim already ;)
Because of this, i feel LFS will always be at a disadvantage and this
is directly a result of the number of people working on LFS, imo.
LFS is like a TVR or something. It's not as popular as a Honda, not
everyone knows what it is, but it's fans are devoted and would
probably kill to defend/protect it hehe :p

nikimere

6th December 2005, 17:05

Hyperactive

6th December 2005, 17:06

Ok, sorry to stick on a detail, but i just don't agree with this Gunn.
In fact, i did some research to make sure i'm not just talking out of
my butt. A simulator, by definition is a machine, it's a physical thing,
while the simulation is the process of simulating, what LFS does.
The simulator is the seat/wheel/cage and computer itself, all of which
respond to outputs from the simulation, a software, LFS. We make words
to better describe and understand each other. If we all go using our
own definitions, what's the point of having words ?! :)

I'd call the whole thing, the program and the equipment a simulator. A simulation is that a person sits inside the caged thing and uses specific inputs to get certain outputs. Imho, of course. In the case of LFS the simulation can't be done without a human being. And this is certainly OT :)

Hallen

6th December 2005, 17:14

Unfortunately guys, most of us are talking apples to Richard's oranges.
I just don't think he gets the point of LFS. This will be an on-going problem with reviews. You cannot spend a few months driving the tracks and trying the cars and really evaluate this phenomena. You will only get an analysis of the cars and the tracks.

It is fair to review the product now. It is an Alpha... but it is for sale. If you can buy it, it can be reviewed, no matter what the state is. The development model used by the LFS team is different than anything else out there, so there is bound to be confusion.

M.Mos

6th December 2005, 17:39

I think the review and points are good. I mean which other game with an outdated grafik and soundengine could get 5/10?

I can't see how people still use that "S2 is Alpha" argument for protecion. If S2 is alpha what was S1 then? Would be a nice trick for Microsoft too "well here's our new Windows , it's alpha but please pay for it. And if you find bugs or you are missing some features, don't go on our nerves, its alpha."

Breizh

6th December 2005, 17:43

Tube

6th December 2005, 17:49

I completely agree with his points, but at the same time I have to admit that I never ever had so much fun playing a racing game online as with this title.

But yes, the physics are weird to a certain extend :)

Cue-Ball

6th December 2005, 17:56

Most likely, the devs chose players having fun asap, over being a magazine review poster child.
I'm glad they made this decision. We're all very lucky to get to play S2 now, rather than still being at S1.

You could compare LFS to some other box game like GTR, but GTR took a lot of quick and dirty shortcuts (e.g. sample-based sounds), and it's nowhere as open-ended as LFS.
I would argue that point. In my opinion, GTR is more open-ended because it can have user made cars and tracks added. However; I actually feel that this is a bad thing as most user made stuff is mediocre. Not to mention that it fragments the community and causes problems joining servers when you don't have all the same cars/tracks as the server is running. I hope the devs will leave LFS locked down through S3 and beyond, as long as they continue to support the game.

Rotary

7th December 2005, 00:57

I want a TVR Griffith 500...

I have a solution, lets all agree to disagree! We can't make everyone think like ourselves, so why bother pushing the point further?

Shotglass

7th December 2005, 01:06

but i did find it was made 10x worse in the f08, although this is well known and probally features the least complete physics out of all the cars.

another point that shows that you dont know what youre talking about ... the fo8 uses the exact same physics model as any other car in lfs
and all the bugs that the fo8 has are in every other car that has either slicks downforce or a double wishbone suspension
lfs doesnt use physics desinged specificially for one car to make that one car feel "right"

indeed LFS is a goodun, but it still has some big issues to be resolved - tyres, dirt grip reduction, more advanced damage, and definatly physics:

ive just picked you out of a whole bunch of lfs critics ... one thing most of you have in common is that you critizise lfs for its incompleteness in fields other sims dont even try to simulate and then come up with the conclusion that lfs physics are crappy
afaik lfs is the only sim that simulates dirt on tyres ... real time tyre deformation ... flatspotting (other do simulate this but not anywhere near as complete as lfs does) ... physics you can actually interact with etc

But they are selling S1/S2/S3 as seperate games, you can either buy S1, S2, or when S3 comes, all of it.

If they are selling them as seperate games, then reviewing them as seperate games is fine, imo.

do you even know that with an s1 license you get all the physics and gameplay updates of 0.5q and that a s2 license actually is nothing more than an expansion pack thatll buy you a bunch of new cars and tracks ?
(admitedly with the current sitation it also buys you the chance of ever finding anybody to race with online)

that comment was a general thought on sim racing, not just LFS, I was not saying LFS WAS QUAKE 2 standard, more the community is quake 2 level and perhaps maybe what the community wants isn't aimed much higher than that when it should be.

what the heck are you even talking about ? the fps genre hasnt made a single bit of progress ever since quake world at all (except maybe the grav gun in hl2 but thats about it)
gameplay hasnt changed even the tiniest bit since qw ... all the "progress" that has been done since then is a bit more eye candy and nothing more

and now something totally different about the physics behind lfs ... i just realised something important while showering ... as far as i can tell lfs is the only sim that has a sizeably community of drifters ... actually if you look into the movies section you get the feeling that lfs is all about drifting

but why is lfs the only sim which attracts drifters ? well to explain you should maybe start by watching a video made by don (i hope its still up):
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=2109
(actual link to the video: ftp://lfsmovies:download@windestam.c...slowmotion.rar thx rotary)
(note to all the drift haters its not a drift video)
what this video shows is nothing but an fxo going round fern bay in slowmotion and i know what youre thinking right now ... youre thinking youll be bored to death ... and youre right you will wish to die while watching this video since don somehow got into his head that "superstar" (a really crappy pop song) was the perfect soundtrack for this video
but in case you survive ... or you simply turn off your speakers youll instantly be intrigued by how right it looks how the car rolls and pitches and how it reacts to all those little bumps and pedal and steering inputs
put in crude terms youll see a car undergoing a series of weight shifts which are just bang on (and remember everything lfs graphics shows you is something its physics simulated)

now to close the circle back to the question of why lfs is the drifters sim of choice
if you know anything about drifting youll know that its all about deliberately shifting the weight of the car ... underloading and loading tyres so they either grip or slip when you want them to
so if the conclusion i draw from that video that lfs is miles ahead of the competition when it comes to simulating weight shifts it should be the one sim drifters go for

and the fact of the matter is that lfs is the sim drifters choose ... coincidence ? certainly not

and another note on the oh so crappy rwd physics ... yes there is something wrong with the grip level at low speeds and rwds feel the worst since the allready too low and to slowly recovering grip level of the tyres gets overwhelmed with having to deal with the force to drive the car too
but i keep hearing that lower powered cars are nowhere near as oversteery as they are in lfs even at higher speeds and that notion is just plain wrong
if youve ever seen one of those japanese drifting videos (yeah i know ive been going on about drifting this whole post ... still im a gripper though) youll certainly have seen how loose sub 200hp cars with balanced setups (good drifting setups are balanced) actually are

Rotary

7th December 2005, 01:12

That link doesn't work, but you can get DoN's video from LFS movie pit... clicky below :)

ftp://lfsmovies:download@windestam.com:4000/slowmotion.rar

RichardTowler

7th December 2005, 01:32

another point that shows that you dont know what youre talking about ... the fo8 uses the exact same physics model as any other car in lfs
and all the bugs that the fo8 has are in every other car that has either slicks downforce or a double wishbone suspension
lfs doesnt use physics desinged specificially for one car to make that one car feel "right"

I class physics as the physics in the game, and what the car is told to be, each car has different values and that is why they handle different I would guess, and as different cars require different areas of the physics engine, certain flaws are exposed more in certain cars.

Hallen

7th December 2005, 04:52

I class physics as the physics in the game, and what the car is told to be, each car has different values and that is why they handle different I would guess, and as different cars require different areas of the physics engine, certain flaws are exposed more in certain cars.

I am not sure if you said what I think you said, but the physics is the world of the game, like you say. Each car is different because... each car is different. Different weight, different suspension, different horsepower, cg, etc. The physics don't change for each car (from what I have read posted by the devs). (so in other words, I think I am agreeing with you)

Each car will tend to expose different aspects of the physics model. And I think this is one reason that it is difficult to fix certain problems. You can't just go and tweak a parameter here and there, you have to figure out what would really happen, and model it.
For example, lets say the slow speed tire physics is bad under certain conditions. I can't go in a just up the grip threashold for the tire. This would also affect the high speed grip, which seems to be fine right now.
I am not being very clear here, but I hope you get the point. Its late and I have posted way to many times to this thread...:schwitz: :pillepall goodnight.

AndroidXP

7th December 2005, 09:18

I class physics as the physics in the game, and what the car is told to be, each car has different values and that is why they handle different I would guess, and as different cars require different areas of the physics engine, certain flaws are exposed more in certain cars.I basically have to repeat what Hallen said: No car is told "what it is". I'm not sure if we actually mean the same but here you go:

A car basically has:
3D model
weight / cog
type of front suspension
type of rear suspension
position of each wheel (or maybe actually only the suspension mounting points)
geometry of front wheels (diameter, broadness, etc.)
geometry of rear wheels
engine parameters (# of cylinders, engine type, power, powerband, revs, # of gears, etc.)
wind resistance / drag coefficient
optional downforce settings
fuel tank size & position
cartype (which tyre types are allowed)

This are basically the things that define a car. You just set these parameters and let the physics engine do the rest. Granted, there may be some things I forgot, but I hope you get the idea.

But I have to agree, that the current flaws of the physics engine are most noticeable on the FO8, because it's the most extreme car we have.

Breizh

7th December 2005, 10:04

That's just not the way it works.
Good code is seamlessly modeling something real, with as little code as possible.
What I think RT is saying is that the physics code will only include what's needed, just as the graphics code will only render what you see. No use rendering the part of the racetrack you're not in sight of, a loss for no benefit.

Just the same, LFS doesn't model trans- or supersonic airflow, nor any other conditions that aren't plausible, however possible.
Sometimes you can take shortcuts (computing-budget-wise) by amputating whole RL parts that won't be used, and sometimes it's simpler to do that and then add a little stub of what you amputated for an exception (such as 1 car in LFS).

tailing

7th December 2005, 10:06

Most likely, the devs chose players having fun asap, over being a magazine review poster child.
Because in the long run, as long as all objectives are met, you're free to play around with the schedule and shift/exchange item orders.

Compare Racing Legends and LFS: LFS delivers as soon as it's playable, and goes from there, while RL is absolutely nothing, not even news, until the entire thing is on the shelf at full price.
You could compare LFS to some other box game like GTR, but GTR took a lot of quick and dirty shortcuts (e.g. sample-based sounds), and it's nowhere as open-ended as LFS.

You can't appreciate a piece of art, or any design, for what it was meant to be unless you see through the maker's eyes. The devs already said this game is made on the condition that they're enjoying doing it.
That excludes frantic deadlines, publisher cashcow tactics and other stigmas of development the game industry is becoming so full of.. it's a totaly different purpose.

The review should've noticed and mentionned this. Game development isn't all fun and games nowadays, it's an industry with money to be made or lost, and with so much at stake when trying to stay on the leading edge, it's easy to get lost in the current..

I agree with you completely.

Also on the topic of S2 being Alpha you simply cannot ignore it. It is not an excuse, it is an explanation. To almost completely ignore this aspect of the game in the review is just not right imo.

Anyway I do feel that Richard has tried to review LFS in a fair manner but like others I feel that maybe he has missed the point of LFS a bit and it's completely different philosophy as a game and as a development process.
Maybe it would be an idea to add a second opinion from someone who feels more favourably, only small but enough to indicate that many feel LFS is a diamond in the rough and that they feel the negatives Richard mentions are overshadowed by the positives.

Vykos69

7th December 2005, 10:13

Simple thing: LFS is punk, some love it and die for it, some never understand it ;) Nice phrase, huh?

CharlieP

7th December 2005, 12:04

A lot of posts just from the 1 review :D

I didn't read the review.... I see no point in it for me.

LFS for me is the best experience I've ever had on a computer, it's not the graphics, sound, physics etc that does it for me, it's the whole package. The fun, excitement, frustration, determination.... you can go through many emotions and states whilst racing online :nod:

Even when LFS is finished it won't score as highly as the more mainstream titles if it's still independant. Companies like EA can release complete rubbish and it gets to No. 1... work it out :Looking_a

The only way LFS will become mainstream and get the best reviews and millions of players is to have it published by one of the big boys, who mostly market products that look and sound fantastic but can have the playability of concrete football boots :thumb:

But LFS can still become the winner (Is it a competition?) ... once the Physics are near-perfect (You can't totally simulate the real thing!) and the graphics and sound are competing with the rest then word of mouth and the fact that it can be downloaded and tried out online in demo mode might be enough.

The problem....

What the LFS hardcore (me too :D ) must realise is that if review of LFS are fantastic, 10/10 or whatever, then millions of first-timers will be swamping your bloved servers and creating havoc!!!

We'll have to lock down our servers and have private races for a long time, if not for ever !!!

I vote for bad reviews... and then only hardcore simulation drivers will join the LFS ranks and we'll have even better clean races :thumbsup:

My main point is this.... If you love LFS, enjoy it!

Doorman

7th December 2005, 12:52

ysu

7th December 2005, 12:56

Good post Charlie, summed it up for me. :thumb:
You guys are top notch...
You don't read the review the thread is about but start posting in the thread straight away... :scratchch :pillepall

Doorman

7th December 2005, 13:06

You guys are top notch...
You don't read the review the thread is about but start posting in the thread straight away... :scratchch :pillepall

Are you infering that I didn't read the post? Naughty to make such assumptions :smileypul

Gabkicks

7th December 2005, 13:56

make love not war.:grouphug:

Doorman

7th December 2005, 14:31

make love not war.:grouphug:

Make love to a strine? Well not a male strine anyway! :icon23:

CharlieP

7th December 2005, 15:20

Make love to a strine? Well not a male strine anyway! :icon23:
Maybe you should meet him for a drink :D

You both live N of Sydney :thumb:

bbman

7th December 2005, 17:30

A lot of posts just from the 1 review :D

I didn't read the review.... I see no point in it for me.

LFS for me is the best experience I've ever had on a computer, it's not the graphics, sound, physics etc that does it for me, it's the whole package. The fun, excitement, frustration, determination.... you can go through many emotions and states whilst racing online :nod:

Even when LFS is finished it won't score as highly as the more mainstream titles if it's still independant. Companies like EA can release complete rubbish and it gets to No. 1... work it out :Looking_a

The only way LFS will become mainstream and get the best reviews and millions of players is to have it published by one of the big boys, who mostly market products that look and sound fantastic but can have the playability of concrete football boots :thumb:

But LFS can still become the winner (Is it a competition?) ... once the Physics are near-perfect (You can't totally simulate the real thing!) and the graphics and sound are competing with the rest then word of mouth and the fact that it can be downloaded and tried out online in demo mode might be enough.

My main point is this.... If you love LFS, enjoy it!

Great post, totally agree with it... :nod:

tailing

8th December 2005, 09:16

Yeah along the lines of what CharlieP said I don't think LFS will ever be mainstream and I'm not sure the devs even really want that. They made the game they wanted to make the way they want to make it.
Call me a fanboy but my perspective on LFS is never going to be completely objective, I'll never fully understand some opinions on LFS and how I can feel the exact opposite.

RichardTowler

8th December 2005, 13:59

mrbogeyman

8th December 2005, 14:46

Cue-Ball

8th December 2005, 15:13

LFS could create and fill this market on the PC. IMO it is one of the easiest games to 'jump in and go'. And with its ease of internet multiplayer there is no reason it cannot become the racing simulation equivalent of World of Warcraft.
I can't wait to get my hands on a set of slicks that are +2 Traction and +1 Resistance to blowout. :D

Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt!

RichardTowler

8th December 2005, 18:33

well I was thinking of something alittle more advanced, GT4 is just a basic game, although done to a very refined finish and it probally captures the whole essence of racing more than any other title, more so when watching the replays.

But my idea of a racing simulation is to drive a virtual car in a virtual world, not just a 3d model, i hope this will come as pc tech improves.

If you added some of this feel in Gt4 to LFS visually, alot more refined physics, the sounds of GTR, you'd have a pretty decent sim on your hands :)

Ardent

8th December 2005, 18:49

there is no reason it cannot become the racing simulation equivalent of World of Warcraft.

IMO :D

you are overseeing the marketing aspect here. Licenses for tracks and cars are most important in order to achieve what you said. If you don't believe me, ask random people if they'd rather drive ferrari in hockenheim or fxogtr in aston.

It's similiar to mmorpgs. Make one with a famous setting/story (lotr or star wars) and will sell itself without the need to offer more than others. Blizzard is of course an exception, because they had big hits with wc3 and diablo 1/2 people will buy everything they make.

96 GTS

8th December 2005, 19:04

Longish but very useful post.
I agree totally. LFS is the only racing "game" that I feel comfortable drifting in. I'm no drifter by any stretch of the imagination, but it's good fun sometimes when you're bored, but that's beside the point. LFS just feels -right- when you're sideways. The only other game that comes close is GPL, which some people would argue is still king, but again, I digress. People make a big deal about drifting in Gran Turismo, but I can't do it, it just feels too artificial, the cars don't ever seem to actually be driving on the track, I don't know how to describe it any better. The cars in LFS just seem so "planted" like they're actually interacting with the track, instead of just appearing to drive on it. IMO, the best example of this is when the cars get air. In LFS, if you go off a jump on a rallycross track, it just feels very organic, in something like Gran Turismo, you jump and land and say, "whoa, that felt odd..." Again, GPL is the only other sim that feels -right- the way the cars sit on the ground.

I don't really know what I'm saying, so I think I'll stop. ;)

Hyperactive

8th December 2005, 19:16

I wouldn't agree on this one. I just can't see simulators never being any kind of main stream products. For example, the main thing making the GTR that popular how it is today is because of three factors, which imho are:
* credibility of simulating the real GTR cars
* driving aids
* it's been "tested" by real drivers

LFS will never be this popular because there won't be arcade mode, semi-realistic mode and ultra realistic mode to choose from. There is only the ultra realistic mode, which sacrifices some playability for realism. And there is some good thinking in this. Which is that if you simulate a real race car perfectly in a sim so that it handles perfectly like the real thing - it will be damn hard to drive. The real race cars give a lot of feedback of what are you doing, like g-forces, all kind of sounds and vibrations. You don't get these in front of your computer.

There are reason why flatspots or realistic damage modelling hasn't been seen in driving games (=racing sims). The main reason is that they make the game too hard for the casual player (there is also the reason that car makers don't want their products seen smashed). The ratio of casual players versus players in total for LFS is much smaller than it is for a game like GTR.

I bet it is fully purposeful that GT4 doesn't have damage modelling. It makes the game too hard for the average 10 year olds. I am not saying a 10 year old can't drive LFS or GTR, I am saying that more 10 year olds expect GT4 for to be a good game in terms of playability (and some for credibility, as they want to drive the reals cars) - not in terms of realism.

Hyperactive

8th December 2005, 19:17

If you don't believe me, ask random people if they'd rather drive ferrari in hockenheim or fxogtr in aston.

I'd take the ferrari at hockenheim. I am not joking. But currently driving the FXR at aston feels better ;)

Shotglass

8th December 2005, 19:21

IMO, the best example of this is when the cars get air. In LFS, if you go off a jump on a rallycross track, it just feels very organic, in something like Gran Turismo, you jump and land and say, "whoa, that felt odd..." Again, GPL is the only other sim that feels -right- the way the cars sit on the ground.

dunno about that ... the cars in lfs dont seem to care much at all whether your foot is on the gas or on the brake pedal in mid air
i havent tried that with any light car with heavy wheels though so im not entirely sure if its just the weight of the car that makes those movements hard to see or if lfs really doesnt simulate it

RichardTowler

8th December 2005, 19:24

LFS will never be this popular because there won't be arcade mode, semi-realistic mode and ultra realistic mode to choose from.

but that is you making the wrong asumption that realism is a bad thing and the only way to make a popular game is to be hardcade, and that is where i think people have it wrong :)

96 GTS

8th December 2005, 19:29

dunno about that ... the cars in lfs dont seem to care much at all whether your foot is on the gas or on the brake pedal in mid air
i havent tried that with any light car with heavy wheels though so im not entirely sure if its just the weight of the car that makes those movements hard to see or if lfs really doesnt simulate it
Right now the way the cars fly has more to do with the way the suspension compresses when they go off the jump, but I do think the rotational forces of the wheels are modeled.

jmkz

8th December 2005, 19:29

the reason that there should be an arcade side of things is because racing with keyboard in LFS is not enjoyable at all; the amount of people who have wheels at their disposal is very small; making LFS only accessible through WHEEL control is simply going to make its target audience smaller.

racing with the mouse feels completely wrong btw:p

Shotglass

8th December 2005, 19:33

I bet it is fully purposeful that GT4 doesn't have damage modelling. It makes the game too hard for the average 10 year olds.

yes and no
yes its on purpose but the reason is quite simply because manufacturers dont like seeing damage on their cars in games

RichardTowler

8th December 2005, 19:36

yes and no
yes its on purpose but the reason is quite simply because manufacturers dont like seeing damage on their cars in games

I believe it also had to do with the fact programming damage to the developers standard would of taken too much time and would of taken too much power from the ps2 to do.

ayrton senna 87

8th December 2005, 19:39

i bet even with the PS3 it wont have damage, its all about the manufacturers

RichardTowler

8th December 2005, 19:44

i bet even with the PS3 it wont have damage, its all about the manufacturers

90% do not mind car damage, its why virtually every single other car game allows damage :) but they are so many cars in GT4, it would require every single model to be recreated, as you can't just have a flat 3d model, you have to model the different parts of the car in 3d that fall off or get damage I believe which increases the polygon count no end along with the time needed to add cars.

sinbad

8th December 2005, 19:54

well I was thinking of something alittle more advanced, GT4 is just a basic game, although done to a very refined finish and it probally captures the whole essence of racing more than any other title, more so when watching the replays.

There's more than one thing GT4 is crap at, but if you had to narrow it down to one major thing which is totally crap in GT4, it would have to be the racing.

All you get with the replays is the same crap racing, but shown in nicely lit graphics with good camera angles. GT4 is about as far from the "essence of racing" as any game could be. It's about time-attacks, track unlocking and car-collecting.

edit:
This applies to multiplayer too, because in their efforts to make it as safe (read:dull) as possible, they gave the cars the collision model from a bumper car fairground ride.

STROBE

8th December 2005, 19:55

90% do not mind car damage
And which survey are you referring to here, in which 90% of them said they didn't mind car damage? :really:

RichardTowler

8th December 2005, 19:57

There's more than one thing GT4 is crap at, but if you had to narrow it down to one major thing which is totally crap in GT4, it would have to be the racing.

All you get with the replays is the same crap racing, but shown in nicely lit graphics with good camera angles. GT4 is about as far from the "essence of racing" as any game could be. It's about time-attacks, track unlocking and car-collecting.

edit:
This applies to multiplayer too, because in their efforts to make it as safe (read:dull) as possible, they gave the cars the collision model from a bumper car fairground ride.

sorry, I meant driving, not racing :schwitz: yes, the racing in GT4 is awful

RichardTowler

8th December 2005, 20:01

And which survey are you referring to here, in which 90% of them said they didn't mind car damage? :really:

just a general number out my head that I feels represents the number, seriously, every single racing game I've played has damage now, apart from the GT series, for example, gtr, gtl, nascar, project gotham racing, rallisport challenge, world racing, wrc games, formula 1 games.

GT series is a huge marketing thing for the car makers, and I'm sure put in a position, be included or not they'd suffer damage on there cars just to get in the game.

TagForce

8th December 2005, 21:45

just a general number out my head that I feels represents the number, seriously, every single racing game I've played has damage now, apart from the GT series, for example, gtr, gtl, nascar, project gotham racing, rallisport challenge, world racing, wrc games, formula 1 games.

GT series is a huge marketing thing for the car makers, and I'm sure put in a position, be included or not they'd suffer damage on there cars just to get in the game.

And the games you mentioned are supported by a series, and manufacturers have nothing to say in their creation... Except for few.

EAs NFS series has gone without damage for a long time, simply because the manufacturers didn't allow it...

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around... No damage system in the game to get a car in it people would want to drive goes a long way with current day publishers.

deggis

10th December 2005, 22:46

I disagree, there is a huge chance for a racing simulation to become mainstream, and I don't mean mainstream NFS style. It just has to be good enough to step it to that challenge, as imo there is a huge market just waiting for a simulation that blows everyone away.
GT Legends tried to approarch this but simply a simulation and a mainstream game will never work together.

90% do not mind car damage, its why virtually every single other car game allows damage :) but they are so many cars in GT4, it would require every single model to be recreated, as you can't just have a flat 3d model, you have to model the different parts of the car in 3d that fall off or get damage I believe which increases the polygon count no end along with the time needed to add cars.
Bullshit. They could make a dynamic car damage (like LFS) so the huge number of cars wouldn't be a problem. But you can see the devs haven't even tried "simulating" crashes or any kind of damage. Cars don't even flip over etc. And what's the most ridiculous thing: this aspect hasn't change since GT1. GT4 fanboys defend themselves saying that crashing other cars is not a part of racing (lol).

Breizh

10th December 2005, 23:02

That's just backpedaling. Back when GT1 was just out, most of the players agreed the crashing auto-pilot got in the way of immersion.
There were a lot of places where you could cheat thanks to the car's fake gravity... the left-right kink before the S/F line on that mountain track, for one.

Hyperactive

11th December 2005, 10:34

but that is you making the wrong asumption that realism is a bad thing and the only way to make a popular game is to be hardcade, and that is where i think people have it wrong :)

Well, for me the realism is the thing that made me love 'em :twirl:

But can you really say that a racing/driving simulator can be hugely popular without having hugely powerful cars, real cars and real tracks? And more importantly without having those arcade modes?

The GT4 is a realistic simulator for those average gamers that haven't played any real simulators. Like some good console flying simulator is very good and realistic until you try some real simulators like X-plane or MS flight simulator. When I played the Gran Turismo 1 for the first time years ago I thought this is the most realistic game I have played. But I knew that it had some serious "realism bugs" and after all it is not realistic. More like the playability of the game is excellent not the realism.

And this really sums up what I am trying to say. I can't give you just one good reason why realism can't make it.

It's the playability that makes a game popular. It's about how fun it is. For me LFS is more fun than GTs and GTRs, but in sense of playability I should choose GT(4): It's less frustrating, I can drive a lot more good cars, I have a goal to go after and a single spin won't ruin my tires. But I still choose LFS.

Like in FPS games, you can have very realistic weapons which do real-like damage and have real like strategic goals and stuff but the basic maneuvers are the same: running, moving around, shooting or getting shot. In realistic simulators versus arcade games the only similarity are the menus. But when you're on the track, stabbing the throttle just makes you spin, making burnouts ruin your tires and you can't get a good time if you hit the walls.

But after all it's a game, so I am not too serious about it ;)

Hatemaker

12th December 2005, 13:05

Race car interiors are horrible (same as road car sibling)I'm sorry, but I just read this.... and I have to ask. have you ever watched a race? Watch the JGTC or the LeManz races, and most of the GT1-GT3 racecars still have the roadcar dash, and center console. In amateur racing that I see and participate in, most of the guys still have the full interior in their cars, and wind up just driving them home after the race. Sorry again for this being an obviously late post about this, but I had to get it off my chest.

:Takes deep breath, lets it out: "Much better"

Tweaker

12th December 2005, 19:37

Slaughterofthesoul

12th December 2005, 20:46

Won't let me view the site.. comes up with USER NAME / PASSWORD:x

Cue-Ball

12th December 2005, 20:51

Not to mention that I've never seen a race car with carpet, stock door panels, etc. Even cars in SCCA racing have Kirkey seats, stripped interiors, non-stock gauges, etc.

I'm not sure if the road cars in LFS are supposed to be mostly stock (they look stock other than the seats) or if they're supposed to be closer to the Production B class in SCCA. However; I have to think that since the suspensions are so configurable they're supposed to be race cars, not stock cars.

I'm sure we'll see new interiors in the GTR class cars (and maybe the open wheelers) eventually. Whether or not that happens with the road cars remains to be seen.

RichardTowler

12th December 2005, 21:54

Won't let me view the site.. comes up with USER NAME / PASSWORD:x

site will be back asap, just sorting out some issues that happened over the weekend, sorry.

Racer Y

12th December 2005, 22:52

A few buttons, metal floorpanels, carbon fibre pieces here and there, or some other 'race' stuff wouldn't hurt... but a completely stock interior in a race car as fast as these GTR cars??? Never seen it. All it has right now is a rollcage... nothing more.

Even the JGTC cars have what I just said. They DON'T have completely stock interiors ;) If our GTR cars looked like this, it would be pretty sufficient to what they are really like.

http://racing.jbskyline.net/2001/Gallery/Bilder/Bild47.php
http://racing.jbskyline.net/2001/Gallery/Bilder/Bild48.php
http://www.macoon.net/carandmacoon/hondamotorsports2002/Pages/Image42.html

Even the smaller class cars like SPEED World Challenge have interiors like this. Keep the interiors the way they are in the GTR cars, and that is like a sin!

You know, i couldn't read the review...page wanted a password. But if LFS isn't all that for him, then fine. It's not like the review is going to be a pulitzer prize nomination or whatever... Who really cares. The guy played the game annd expressed his opinions on the subject.

Going from the posts on this thread (couldn't see the review) it seems the guy left out things. Like LFS offers various types of racing. I haven't seen a drag strip on Nascar. And I don't think rFactor has a rally course.
Does ANY of the other sims/games have a parking lot?
You coulda brought up that in your review.... Physics....
just how real can sitting in front of a box be? Ever think most people that try out racing games for the first time use a KB? that LFS allows for a mouse? I don't think there's another one out there that allows a mouse.
I hated most racing games cause playing w/a kb felt so...lame. at least with the mouse it gave off some sort or feel to it.

Like I said, I havent read your review, but it seems your biggest dissappointment is the fact that LFS isn't where YOU think it should be now. LOL if that's the case, then join the club. I imagine Everyone has some sort of idea where LFS is going and where they think it SHOULD be.
But oh well, that's just the way it is. I don't think LFS will be exactly
EXACTLY what everyone will expect, but when it's done, I imagine it will be close

I don't care what they do to the interior, so long as the clocks stay.

RichardTowler

13th December 2005, 00:48

site is back, for now, I hope for longer :scratchch

WorldFamous

13th December 2005, 02:48

For the most part I agree with the review, it seemed a little heavy handed with the critisisism but none of it was uncalled for in my book.

Everyone views LFS in a different way, for me it has always been about being able to click the mouse a couple of times and find myself on a track with 19 other racers ready to go. LFS really does have the best online racing experience this side of Project Gotham (it's not a sim but nobody can deny how fun and fluid that game is online). Yes, there are holes in the physics but at the end of the day Live For Speed is a game and everyone online is playing within the same restrictions. Is the game where the devs want it to be? No. Does it detract from the fun of the actual racing? Not one bit.

I know Live For Speed is aiming to simulate driving far more accurately than it does now (so it's fair to score the review low) but I can forgive that because racing online hassle free with people from all over the world more than makes up for whatever imperfections anyone can name.

Here endeth my unashamed gush of LFS praise.

nikimere

13th December 2005, 09:42

My god, this thread is still going. Richard must feel like burnt toast :flamed: :shy:

Cue-Ball

13th December 2005, 17:27

My god, this thread is still going. Richard must feel like burnt toast :flamed: :shy:
I doubt it, as quite a few people agree with what he wrote (myself included). Many of us love LFS, but we're not blind to it's shortcomings.

RichardTowler

14th December 2005, 00:52

My god, this thread is still going. Richard must feel like burnt toast :flamed: :shy:

haha, nah i find it interesting to discuss different thoughts on subjects :pillepall

leafer

14th December 2005, 02:27

I love LFS 1 but I haven't bought 2. Personally, the graphics don't bother me. But I'm going to wait until they implemented proper damage modeling to this game. Not trying to flame but it's not quite a simulation until they add that bit.

Hankstar

14th December 2005, 03:12

Leafer, S2's an alpha so it's still a WIP. Having said that, it's still loads of fun because the good stuff outweighs the bad/lacking/nonexistent stuff, imho. By not buying S2 now you aren't saving any money (it'll cost the same in 12 months as it does now) and you're missing out on the improved/brand new cars. For my 24 quid, S2 beats S1, even in its unfinished state.

If the lack of realistic damage modelling is what troubles you, just don't crash until the next damage patch :D

leafer

14th December 2005, 04:02

Hankstar,

I just bought Richard Burns rally and is saving to buy a set of wheel to play it. I've given S2 serious thought but I only have so much money at the moment. I know 24 euro is cheap by a lot of you guys' standard but it's a lot of money for someone who lives in this stinkin' 3rd world country. teh

And that's exactly my point. People like me (low in-come) are going to debate and ponder all the pros and cons before we spend what little we have. They need to have all the features down to win everyone over. I know they will one day and I hope it's soon before someone, somewhere is already discovering this lil' corner of the market. And it's only a matter of time before they come out with killer race sim.

cheers

Tweaker

14th December 2005, 05:30

You'd only need to pay 12 more euro to upgrade from S1 leafer.

If you don't have much money now... you better save up. Because by the time we get some REALLY fancy damage modelling, it would be in S3 (what is assumed) -- that could be a while... and that would cost 24 euro to upgrade too from S1. :shrug:

I as well would love to have some better damage modelling, but what is here now is sufficient for the time being.

I recently was talking about how the cars are rather simple... no door lines, no bumper lines, etc... so the cars aren't really in 'pieces' --- or they don't look like they are in pieces. So if we had better damage modelling, Eric better think ahead, because he'd have to redo ALL of the car models to make detachable parts look correct. It all sounds like a lot of work, and I honestly think it will all come in S3.

cannonfodder

14th December 2005, 06:20

If you don't have much money now... you better save up. Because by the time we get some REALLY fancy damage modelling, it would be in S3 (what is assumed) -- that could be a while... and that would cost 24 euro to upgrade too from S1. :shrug:

He's still going to get that fancy damage modelling even if he can't afford to upgrade, just like he got the all the new physics/language upgrades. Except for the aero effects, since S1 cars don't generate downforce. S2 and S3 licenses are just to unlock the new tracks and cars, remember?

SladiVadi

14th December 2005, 06:43

He's still going to get that fancy damage modelling even if he can't afford to upgrade, just like he got the all the new physics/language upgrades. Except for the aero effects, since S1 cars don't generate downforce. S2 and S3 licenses are just to unlock the new tracks and cars, remember?
Problem is the hosts are seperated too. It would be nice to be able to race together S1 and S2 licencees. :shrug:

afastest

14th December 2005, 07:07

Hey ppl, why do keep calling quids(pounds) euros? It's not the same thing. 12 pounds is 18euros or 21 US dollars.

leafer

20th December 2005, 23:41

I'm downloading S2 as I type this. i'm on 56K so 5 hours to go! I'm sure the phone line under this stinkin' place is corroded so add couple more hours on top of that. LOL

Will get it after I saved enough for wheel. Any suggestion as to which brand to buy? I saw a Momo FF one for around 3400 baht; about 80 usd.

leafer

21st December 2005, 13:22

Sorry for being off topic but when you're on a 'really crappy' connection, you just don't have the will nor the speed to search. :shy:

Ramses

21st December 2005, 15:02

Sorry for being of topic too but if you have problems with your connection you may want to wait before buying S2! LFS in an online game with little more offline content then for practice. Better to wait untill you have a good connection!

Dethred

21st December 2005, 15:41

Scawen

21st December 2005, 15:47

Blues

21st December 2005, 16:29

Its no wonder the game is seemingly off track
The game IS NOT off track! It's ON TRACK...and the game gets better and better...

And I am sure, everyone that makes games/software/whatever like constructive critcism, and so does the LFS devs...they like constructive critcism, I am sure about that (so they can make the game better), and I have never seen other gamedevs, discuss their game open in forums like Scawen, and if he didn't like constructive critcism, I am sure he would not visit these forums as much as he do. But just moan about the simulator like you do, doesn't help the devs at all.

DratsaB

21st December 2005, 16:31

Great review, its refreshing to know there is at least one other person in this community willing to say what needs to be said. Its no wonder the game is seemingly off track considering there is so little constructive criticism, maybe its Scawen's inherent hostility towards criticism that stops people.

Im starting to find comments like this quite annoying. I really appreciate everything we have been given in S2 Alpha and Im very happy with the rate that we get progress reports on. Im sure Scawen and the boys are aware that the comments of the above poster, and the recent other moan/demand posts are a very small minority of people, Im sure.
Just wanted to re-enforce the fact that, im sure, there are way more people (infrequent posters like myself included) happy with what we have been given and the development process in general.

Again, thank you Scawen, Victor and Eric for an amazing Sim. :)

Dethred

21st December 2005, 17:59

So you like the amount of progress and the current state of the sim, and I don't. They're called opinions. I find yours probably more annoying than you find mine. I think part of the problem is 95% of the people on here being fanboys and just saying everything is 100% great. What is the point of having a discussion forum if everyone is supposed to think exactly the way you do, eh Stalin?

Dethred

21st December 2005, 18:01

Dethred, you are again in fantasy land. None of the LFS devs has ever rejected constructive critcism. We obviously do not accept when someone like you goes on and on about how we have let you down and should be doing things differently, when all we ever try to do is provide you a good game and simulator to entertain you, if you should so desire. And we always deliver what we promise. We haven't strapped you in a chair, stood over you with a whip and forced you to race.

Once again your business practices are impeachable. Now I know why no one dares to criticize the game, because the devs will personally attempt to dress them down. If you read my posts I try to remain civil until a whole mob of people tell me my OPINIONS are wrong. Really, I have never seen such a cult of people that think people's opinion's are wrong. This must be a European thing.

PS: I do feel let down, especially at the tone and rhetoric of the very people trying to sell this game. I remained perfectly civil until being called "stupid" in the other thread, at which time my tone changed, yet my attititude towards you remained civil until you insulted me. The problem is not that you have strapped me down and force me to race, its that I CAN'T RACE with the game in its current state.

If you don't believe me get online at 9PM EST and try to get a decent race in the car class of your choice. You'll be lucky to get 1 good race. So citing that, which is not your problem as a dev, go and play a single player race with 20 cars for 1 hour. Uh oh, You always win because the AI runs out of fuel. So I guess there is always training for the rare race online?

PPS: I have just realized the equivalent to what you just said. Its like buying a used car in "usable condition" from someone that didn't tell you it was broken and barely running, and when you complain they say "No one is forcing you to drive it". I can't believe I just got that answer from someone I bought something from. This is almost as bad as getting scammed on Ebay.

letdown427

21st December 2005, 18:28

I can't help but feel that you're just trying to find some way of sueing Scawen?

Here in Europe, well UK at least, we've had an outburst of ridiculous Health & Safety enforcements because (in my opinion) of people such as yourself.

From what I've read, you purchased the game having gotten the wrong impression from the main page about the number of people regularly racing with it online and such? So earlier I think you were trying to get the point across that the information on that page is misleading, and as such you felt scammed out of your 30USD? (I think you said 30, my apologies if I mis quoted you there)

Well, that's a shame that tha happened, but I think most courts would argue that the information isn't misleading enough to merit fining the development team, and that perhaps you should research purchases further before commiting. Much like on ebay.

Your turn.

tristancliffe

21st December 2005, 18:31

There are frequently lots of people racing, and most 'mericans don't have a problem afaik.

Also, Scawen doesn't 'dress down' those who critisise LFS, but those that unfairly critisise it, like you are. None of your 'facts' are based on fact. I think your posts are annoying the vast majority of people MUCH more than our posts are annoying you. It's YOU that can't see the point. We might be fanboys, but we are not blind to truths. We will tell you LFS's faults. It would only need a small bit of paper to write the worthwhile ones.

I can play online absolutely fine.

There are currently 568 racers online in LFS. (299 Demo - 269 Licensed)

Where is your problem there? Why can't you race? Okay, so your in a different time zone, but we don't see Vendetta, Nuse, or any of the other Americans crying about how few people play. You can't. You can only moan that it's because enough people haven't bought it.

You were unreasonable LONG before you were called stupid. And since then you have only been proving his point, with misjudged arguments, without any backed up facts. We are laughing at you. LFS is laughing at you. LFS is NOT a mass market game, it is a niche simulator, and we don't need your type around here.

Tweaker

21st December 2005, 19:18

The problem is not that you have strapped me down and force me to race, its that I CAN'T RACE with the game in its current state.

Putting things aside, I see you racing online quite often, so what's the big deal? (And you race midday in US timezones, so you certaintly have the time to play, anytime)

Even if you aren't racing and just screwing around, so be it. And if you don't like the racing, then just forget about it. Don't come moaning in here, and then go off and play LFS.... so contradictory to what you have been saying, and that is just your own deal, not ours to hear a passionate diary about. I'm quite surprised you bring this consistent argumentive attitude for whatever huge LFS thread you can find. I still remember your RSC thread(s) where you would just not take no for an answer by posting and posting such wild claims. It is annoying.

I mean, if I cannot go buy some orange juice at 2am in the evening because some stores are closed, I'm not going to dwell about it so much that it frustrates me. If something doesn't meet your playtime schedule, you just gotta improvise and play at other times. I know you want to take a shot at playing the game in Singleplayer when things like this happens, but it is b0rked, we all know that, who cares. I haven't even touched Singleplayer AI since the moment I found they were screwed up.... it shouldn't be staring you in the eyes giving you nightmares because it doesn't work, sheesh.

Shotglass

21st December 2005, 19:34

...

bitching is not constructive criticism

th84

21st December 2005, 19:36

If you don't believe me get online at 9PM EST and try to get a decent race in the car class of your choice

I was trying to avoid posting in this thread, but that statement is simply... false! I get on at 8:30-9:00est EVERY night and there is always a choice of servers to join! Last night for example, i was on a full server with uf1/fe club, the night before i was on another server, full, with as nat/fo8 running.

and every race was a good race, even with the occasional turn 1 pile up!!

ORION

21st December 2005, 19:45

I havent read the whole thread, but had a quick glance at most of the posts...
Well, maybe the reason for you not being able to race is less the others (who are not there), than you. Don't you win the races, or are you just crashed off the track all the time? I dont have any problems with that tbh, I can have clean and nice racing on any server at any time, even on demo servers.
(Even though it requires a special skill to swerve noobehs coming from the wrong way on the backstraight).

At least your way is not the way to go, because flaming and moaning will drown out the actual information and opinions in your posts.

We are indeed fanboys, but we do know how a real car behaves, and LFS is much closer to reality than any other game out there, especially when I look at my RC car on loose/slippery ground, and compare it with rallycross.
The problem is simply that you dont have the feeling what a car does, unless you are sitting inside. You are actually countersteering all the time, automatically. In LFS you dont, and thus you spin.

Eldanor

21st December 2005, 20:19

Dethred, you are again in fantasy land. None of the LFS devs has ever rejected constructive critcism...

I wonder how much hearing the same things again and again can erode your will and hopes of keeping this great work. At least the community has proven with it's support that this is going the right way (there are some divergent opinions, but we agree with the important thigs). You are on the right way :thumb:

PS: This is just to show a bit of support, if it sounded ass kissing (like someone said) is because of my english.

afastest

22nd December 2005, 01:06

This thread should get closed too. Or at least some people should stop posting same crap over and over again.

Racer Y

22nd December 2005, 05:52

Uh wasn't the original posts on this thread about some dude's review?

I don't get to be online much at 8:00-9:00 EST. That's when my kids are on.
but When I do get on in the evening here, about 11:00-12:00 EST, it
is pretty much a ghost town on the servers. When you filter the thing to show
only occupied servers, there's maybe 8-10 at the most. Most of the time it's more like 5 or 6. Like I said in the post that got locked, that's not the fault of LFS. People in America just don't get off to racing. But there's still a hard core group of us :) I just got through playing on a GURU server for LX-4s before
coming here and adding to this thread.
You know Dethred, you point out all the flaws in this game. That's fine. We all knew about them beforehand. And they're going to be fixed eventually.
So I'm sort a confused as to why it's gotten to you so badly. you really shouldn't let this crap get to you. I also honestly don't see where you've been ripped off or scammed by buying the license to S-2 and only getting the Alpha.... LOL that's what they said they were gonna put out before they released it. I'll admit, I didn't think the A.I. was going to be THAT damn stupid, but I'll also admit I didn't really fool with single player for about two weeks after I got S-2. I didn't get S-2 for single player games.
That's what I got a Playstation for. I also just don't see where the physics bugs are keeping you from playing. TBH, I'd a never known there were any
if nobody said anything. And those issues still don't affect anything for me.

My only real complaint about LFS is getting a leg cramp from long races on Aston Cadet But that's cool. I think the clock more than makes up for that.

@ Richard trowler: THat's another thing you failed to mention in your review. How many other racing games or sims or whatever have real time clocks in the dash? That device has come in handy for me way way more than the clear windows ever will :)

Oh well I guess you can't please everyone.