Quote from Bob Smith :

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

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 ), 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.

Quote from RichardTowler :

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.

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?

Quote from RichardTowler :

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.

Quote from RichardTowler :

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?

Quote from RichardTowler :

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.

Quote from RichardTowler :

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.

Quote from Gunn :

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.

Quote from Hallen :

***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:

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 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.

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.

Quote from RichardTowler :

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

Quote from Hyperactive :

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

Quote from Hallen :

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.

I have to agree a lot with that review (except the sound part not all sounds are samples in LFS ) 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? ).

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??

Quote from SlamDunk :

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 . i guess he is right on some levels.


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

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.

Quote from RichardTowler :

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.

[Opinion] 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 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…
[/Opinion]

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

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.

i like how lfs looks good and runs like a dream on my 9600XT. 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.

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.

Quote from RichardTowler :

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

Quote from RichardTowler :

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 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.

Richard.. man.. you gave it 5/10 like we are talking about some rubish here illepall illepall ..
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..

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.

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

Excellent review.

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.

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....

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.