Quote from tristancliffe :

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

Yes, and by the time he's done I think he will have an almost orgasm-inducing physics update for us 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.

Quote from RichardTowler :

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.

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

tristan, axus, fordman.

u do the math

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 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

Quote :

tristan, axus, fordman

And whats that suppost to mean

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

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

tristan, axus, fordman.

u do the math

Quote from Fordman :

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.

Quote from Fordman :

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.

Quote from Fordman :

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)

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" .

Quote from Hyperactive :

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 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.

First one to make this post on the rFactor forums wins the prize

Quote :

: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:

Quote from Hyperactive :

It's even funnier that people buy Alphas.

Dont u mean It's even funnier that people buy Alfa's ??

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.

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

Quote from colcob :

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

Quote from RichardTowler :

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

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).

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 . 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.

Quote from axus :

You have a big one - I hope you don't mind if I point it out in public?
RichardTowler's online stats

are the physics different offline?

Quote from RichardTowler :

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.

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.

Quote from Tweaker :

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'.

Quote from Fordman :

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.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

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.

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.

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.

Quote from gamefaction :

... 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.

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.

Quote from KiDCoDEa :

please stop posting innacuracies.

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

Quote from AndriodXP :

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.

Me too, me too ^^