That's all true, and this is where LFS is the best, and where nobody complains: LFS is fully multiplayer-friendly.

Quote from B2B@300 :

what your suggesting is a structure not much different to what they initially escaped from

I absolutely don't see where he suggests anything as such. What the devs escaped is the big money standard game production business model where you get a bunch of 40 people working on a game with financing for the time allowed to produce the game (which is why there is a deadline).

What Boost suggests is essentially to make small patches of one feature alone (no matter how small that feature may be) just to calm the unhappy part of the community down. And if you ask me it sort of makes sense cause it would most likely calm down people who want new stuff quicker.

Quote from Nick_ll :

What Boost suggests is essentially to make small patches of one feature alone (no matter how small that feature may be) just to calm the unhappy part of the community down. And if you ask me it sort of makes sense cause it would most likely calm down people who want new stuff quicker.

... who are back in no time screaming that it contains bugs or they don't like the package anyway...

Quote from bbman :

... who are back in no time screaming that it contains bugs or they don't like the package anyway...

....which happens anyways even with bigger patches.....

Better to have one big physics change that makes us go "wow, cool, thanks Scawen + co", rather than lots of small ones that slowly fix the problems, but we don't notice the end affect as much and with lots of hassle along with way.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Better to have one big physics change that makes us go "wow, cool, thanks Scawen + co", rather than lots of small ones that slowly fix the problems, but we don't notice the end affect as much and with lots of hassle along with way.

I agree, also the lfs-world's records get deleted after physics updates.

Quote from Nick_ll :

I absolutely don't see where he suggests anything as such. What the devs escaped is the big money standard game production business model where you get a bunch of 40 people working on a game with financing for the time allowed to produce the game (which is why there is a deadline).

What Boost suggests is essentially to make small patches of one feature alone (no matter how small that feature may be) just to calm the unhappy part of the community down. And if you ask me it sort of makes sense cause it would most likely calm down people who want new stuff quicker.

Your free to disagree but I guess we all interpret things differently so discussion is always a good thing

My comments weren’t aimed at Boostfire specifically...

Unfortunately while the suggestion Boostfire and others make is made with good intentions I see it leading to segments of the community expecting and putting pressure on the developers to go in certain directions, it's just the nature of the beast ... which probably does nothing but dampen their enthusiasm for the tuff job that they have already undertaken and it would definitely lead them away from their stated goals of

Quote from Scawen :

The design decisions and direction are led by interest, our ideas and experiments and also influenced a lot by requests and ideas from the community.

and what I was originally alluding to is that if that happens it would be no different than working in a large corporation, because they would then have to do things based on other considerations other than "what they find interesting at the time" wether the "other considerations" is financial or people demanding a fix in a certain time frame for a certain problem

Anyway there's a saying goes something like this "You can't please all of the people all of the time!, at best you'll only please some of the people most of the time..." so I think it would be a huge waste of energy to constently seek out the unhappy segments and try and keep them happy - it's better that they just pursue their goals and dreams for the sim and those that like it and believe in it will remain some will not remain though and that would happen regardless of what they do

Well I read 3 pages of this thread and it's done two things for me.. annoy the crap out of me, and give me an even deeper respect for the game and its 3 developers, haha. As soon as money allows I'll go ahead and buy my S2 license. I haven't been around long, but am already one of many here who think this is the best racing simulator available, on any platform. Two to everybody involved, keep up the good work guys. You know exactly what you're doing.

Since this looks like "the complaining thread", I will do mine...


What is making me loose interest on LFS is that each day, more and more physics bugs are being exploited in order to do fast laps.



I noticed that some WR laps are done with locked differential. This wasn't new with FWD cars, but now some are using even on RWD cars. I'm still going to see ANY real car with locked differential on track, even for qualify. It just doesn't make sense, but it's more effective on LFS.


The aero bug was already making me avoid driving the downforce cars, then the fixed diferential on FWD even on races, and now fixed diferential on RWD ? And not only XRT, but the I've already seen VERY fast setup for XRR with locked diferential.

Ehm, this is nothing new so to say. These problems are well known and they'll probably be worked on in January. Besides that, no that is not "the complaining thread".

Quote from B2B@300 :

Your free to disagree but I guess we all interpret things differently so discussion is always a good thing

Yeah the difference is that YOU interpreted something he didn't write, whereas Boosterfire's room is approximately 2 meters away from mine and I can talk to him in person if I want. So you can interpret as much as you wish (which is done plenty in this forum, even with clear posts from devs), but I was just telling you what Boost actually was saying (and what he explained in person).

Ah it looks like this thread is informative
I didn't know about a "differential bug".

Quote from Fonnybone :

I'm sorry, but that's your opinion. You can express your opinion, no
problem there. What i don't understand is that 2cents argument turn-
around...."I'm getting bored, therefore, the code should be open". I
just don't see any logic there. Tell me again, what's stopping you guys
from playing LFS because there's a 'new' game out ?!?

The devs have mentionned their interest in releasing editors ONCE LFS IS
DONE. When that is, no one knows, but if enough people keep b!tching, it
might be sooner than later hehe Even then, there'll still be whinning for
editor updates and all

You're right its my opinion, and its borderline insulting for you to state it like I don't know.illepall Whats stopping us? Maybe the AI that don't pit, and the lack of online players at 8pm on the east coast of the U.S. (don't you dare try and say that's not the devs fault, I already know that, just suggesting some minor updates to make more people get back online)? Maybe also the physics frustrate me after a few laps?

Maybe some open source code could allow someone to at least make the AI pit, or the tires accurate. THAT, is NOT an opinion. I think the problem here is That the game is barely playable for many of us (physics, Single Player, etc). I mean I'd at least play single player a lot if the AI was fixed.) My biggest peave is that I was at least waiting for AI fixes and a physics fix, and almost 6 months after release and 1 year after the first announced release date there has been minor bug fixes and a language pack. To myself, and especially those on the east and west coast getting home from work at 7-8pm, there is no more online play and no single player worth mentioning. To us the game is seriously dying.

LFS is not open source, why arguing about it? Asking Scawen to release the source code of LFS is like asking Microsoft to release the source code of Windows.

There are already some open source "simulations" out there, so why don't you play and improve them?

goddamit stop asking for progress reports! You dont see other game makers releasing progress reports as much as the devs do you?

unsubscribing myself from a thread for the first time.

Quote from GP4Flo :

LFS is not open source, why arguing about it? Asking Scawen to release the source code of LFS is like asking Microsoft to release the source code of Windows.

There are already some open source "simulations" out there, so why don't you play and improve them?

I have an idea, why don't you not reply to anything I say anymore. Thanks. And I won't go and improve those games because they are FREE, There seems to be this big misunderstanding among you fanboys, that nothing is owed to people who pay money for this game. If I get my ~$40 back I'll not complain a bit.

Quote from Vendetta :

goddamit stop asking for progress reports! You dont see other game makers releasing progress reports as much as the devs do you?

Thats because other games ARE COMPLETE. Jesus Christ. You guys are starting to wear this out. When I bought a game that was promised, and I can't even play single player because the opponents run out of fuel I am certainly entitled to complain about it. If you don't like it then feel free to NOT REPLY. Thanks.

PS: What is this nonsense on the liveforspeed.net webpage about 500+ people online, and there are only 44 players in open public servers?

Quote from Dethred :

the game is barely playable for many of us (physics...)

Woah.

As Scawen would be the first to admit and many people will readily point out, LFS' physics are not perfect - they are flawed. I'm no expert driver, yet even I can feel when something goes wrong. Like trying to get round a hairpin without drifting the back end. Like trying to closely follow another GTR car around Westhill without running clean out of aero effect. Like being overtaken by a car with a stiffly-sprung nose pointing at the sky. Yeah, the flaws in the physics can be quite conspicuous at times.


To date, I've covered almost 9500 miles in LFS, most of that in S2, and most of it in the GTR cars. Not once have I encountered a single anomaly, freak physics calculation on my car (except collisions, but the general idea of the game is to avoid those...), or terminal failure of the physics engine that would render it "barely playable".

Of course it's just your opinion that it's "barely playable", which you're entitled to. Just as I'm entitled to my opinion that you're making massive generalisations and exaggerations in the hope that someone will acquiesce to your demands.

As for not having anyone to race with when you get home from work at 8pm (~1am GMT), then maybe you should quit your job, then you could race at the peak LFS times. I'm not being facetious, it's simply as sensible a suggestion as turning parts of Scawen, Eric and Victor's source of income into an open source software. I'd love development to be faster too, the aero limitations in particular I find quite annoying at times. But hey, guess what? Me whinging about it isn't going to make them work miracles, so in the meantime I'll enjoy what we've got so far, try and drive around the flaws when they occur, and not harass them when they've already given some idea of what's in store.

Quote from Dethred :

PS: What is this nonsense on the liveforspeed.net webpage about 500+ people online, and there are only 44 players in open public servers?

And? I just opened the calculator and did a full refresh on the serverlist. With all filters off (except "empty" of course) I counted 226 people. Then I went to LFSW and opened the "Racers & Hosts online" thingy. Then I roughly counted the people showed there and came to 224, which was close enough to be accurate. Now take the 3 S1 racers and the 298 demo players, and ZING we have 527, very close to what is displayed on the main page.

E:

Quote from Dethred :

When I bought a game that was promised, and I can't even play single player because the opponents run out of fuel I am certainly entitled to complain about it.

Oh god, this is so stupid it hurts. You prepaid for a not yet released version of an ONLINE racing simulator. We're lucky that we've got the ALPHA version to play with, till the full version is released. Oh Em Geee, how can someone dare to have some bugs in an UNFINISHED ALPHA version of a product?

Arrgh, I cut it. Have to go with Scawen here: If you don't like LFS, then go and play any of the other sims out there. Come back when the patch was released but stop cluttering the forums with such idiotic "discussion" which is nothing other than beating a dead horse.

Quote from Dethred :

My biggest peave is that I was at least waiting for AI fixes and a physics fix,

They will come...so just relax!

You will not get things fixed faster, just because you complain.

We all want better physics, AI, whatever, and we will get that...so just relax, or play another game until a big patch is out...as you don't seem to like this LFS-version.

Quote from Dethred :

Thats because other games ARE COMPLETE. Jesus Christ. You guys are starting to wear this out. When I bought a game that was promised, and I can't even play single player because the opponents run out of fuel I am certainly entitled to complain about it. If you don't like it then feel free to NOT REPLY. Thanks.

You paid for S2. S2 isn't out yet. We are lucky that Scawen saw fit to allow us to be alpha testers. No one has actually recieved what they paid for. We all knew what LFS was about when we paid our monies, so we cannot complain.

And you paid for an Online Racing Simulator, so it seems a little childish to cry that the offline bit isn't or hasn't been concentrated on for the Alpha.

I didn't see many people complain about the rFactor Multiplayer test demo being naff offline.

Quote from Dethred :

And I won't go and improve those games because they are FREE, There seems to be this big misunderstanding among you fanboys, that nothing is owed to people who pay money for this game. If I get my ~$40 back I'll not complain a bit.

...

Quote from License Agreement :

2.1 Your payment will grant you the license to play the Live for Speed S1 or S2 release only, depending on the type of license purchased.

That means, payment allows you to play Live for Speed S2 in it's current state...
I don't see any statement here saying that paying license will also give you right to demand patches for anything you think is a bug... and that the progammer must obey, because of course you know much better than him what is wrong with physics, and how long it will take to fix it..

You played the demo, so you knew what bugs are there, and what you can expect in full version, so you can't say that you've been scammed...

..and releasing LFS as open source? ROFL... I can already tell you what would happen.. there will suddenly be numerous versions of LFS, each will have something in physics fixed, some old bugs repaired, some new added, some will even allow custom cars, and none of them will be compatible with each other... number of cheats and exploits will increase tenfold... and newest isi games will miraculously gain a better feel for the car...

Dethred: Why would you pay for an unfinished game, and then complain that you paid for an unfinished game? seems pretty backward to me!

Can't believe this thread is still going! I guess there are still some people out there who don't get it .. *sigh*