After a recent comment on the Steam forums saying how all ISI powered games are a flop, I decided to think about it and see if that's actually the case. Here's where I got:
(the vast majority of my reply to such topic was pasted - some parts were omitted for the sake of keeping the discussion here in RD clean).
(all of what was written bellow is what I perceive to be how the described events turned out. I can be wrong in one or multiple subjects, so don't be afraid of doing research to correct me on things)
(I ask that, if you find who made the original comment -which I censored-, do not bring this person up here. The point of this thread is to attack the argument, not the person)
----------------------------------------------------
ISI-powered games (which includes rF2) aren't a flop because of the engine itself, but because of developer/publisher bad decision making.
There's several reasons a lot of sims use the engine from rF1 as a base, the most common one being a great physics starter, but there's also the fact that it's a known piece of software that was used for several years in many great titles, it's historic relevance, and so on.
ISI did great titles in the past, like F1 Challenge '99-'0 (and some older F1 titles) where you got consistency in what cars and tracks to expect.
But then, for some reason, they decided not to do the same with rFactor 1.
Even some of these old F1 games were moddable, and for whatever reason ISI decided to leave most of the content creation for rFactor 1 in the hands of the community. This led to a big inconsistency in mod quality, of 1000 mods you could count on very few of these to be any good.
After rFactor 1, the glorious GTR2 came about. It was revolutionary in quite a few features, and content. It had all cars and tracks for the FIA GT series that spanned 2 full seasons, full 24h day/night transitions, rain, some basic real road technology, a driving school, animated pit marshals, and a bunch of features and consistency/focus not yet seen in the sim world for at least 12 years. It used the same isiMotor as a base and it was a success, still regarded today as one of the best simulators ever made (made by what is now SMS, the makers of Project Cars 1&2 ------ SimBin, the developers of Race07, Race On, and then later RaceRoom, had almost nothing to do with the development of GTR2).
Then a year later, SimBin used the same base engine for Race07, and while it still had great physics, graphically the engine started to show it's age, specially on the same year Crysis was released.
Still, the game is regarded as a great product.
Now in 2008, iRacing was released. No more bad cars, no more bad tracks. Not only it was consistent in content, graphically it was already surpassing anything isiMotor related that was released to that day.
I think many people migrated to iRacing because the overall experience was better not only graphically but in terms of cars and tracks as well, not to mention in multiplayer.
Then in 2011 Kunos started development of Assetto Corsa with an in-house engine. Physics and feature wise the title was a downgrade from their previous, netKar Pro, but graphically AC was step in the right direction. Still, the title lacked many core features even several years after it's release.
And yet again, people were migrating more to promises and shiny graphics rather than staying at stable core and good physics present in the rF1 engine.
It's understandable, though. If companies want to sell a bit more titles, they have to attract the eye of the audience as well.
At this point it is said that ISI had already started development on rFactor 2. In fact, there are records of development starting in 2009.
In 2012 the open beta of rFactor 2 was released. It was a huge step forwards in physics, being at least a decade ahead of any competition - sadly, ISI focused so much effort into 'just physics' that the title was broken in a lot of ways. The pricing model was horrible, it lacked documentation for modders which were now looking for an easier platform to mod since modding for rFactor 2 was too complicated because of the massive advance in physics (and so parameters as well).
That mentality of "let the community produce content" did work in 2005 because there was not many sim platforms to jump around, but it certainly didn't work for rFactor 2, specially after the release of iRacing with many official cars and tracks and later with the release of Assetto Corsa which also revolutionized sim racing in many, many ways.
In 2013 RaceRoom was released. Being regarded as merely a 'hotlap simulator' it lacked content, features, even multiplayer.
And even now, after 5 years of development, RaceRoom (the company, not to be confused with Sector 3 or even the game's name) somehow still has a poor pricing model, stupid online DRM, and not many features for the game. Users can't even change the tire pressure, the setup part of the simulation is still very basic, more basic than GTR2 in 2006.
Then Assetto Corsa was released. Shinny graphics, good documentation for modders and easy to mod (way simpler physics than rF2 or even rF1 from 2005 according to some known personas here in RD), a large community started growing around it. But to me, if it wasn't for the good price and moddability AC would end up close to what R3E is now, perhaps even worse considering how long it took for AI to come and be perfected, for instance (and that is, with a higher budget than what I think Sector3 has had).
A year later, SMS, which had developed GTR2 and was picked by EA to develop a few Need for Speed titles, developed Project Cars. Shinny graphics (probaby the best graphics of it's time), lots of content. The hype was good; the title, however, not so much. Shady physics, bug infested, players were not happy about it.
Still a year later, Automobilista came to be. Being regarded as one of the best racing titles out there, it lost a good deal of potential because Reiza didn't have money to license known tracks/cars, and the fact that they decided to use an ever graphically-aging engine didn't help the title. Still, it's regarded as one of the best when it comes to physics, force feedback, car/track polish, and sounds.
Reiza also did a good job with the isiMotor2 engine.
Again a year later, SMS released Project Cars 2. While improving a lot upon the first title, it's still quite buggy, physics change with every update and can be wonky at times, and their sound engineer should be fired.
Still, player count continues to increase. It has a name for itself, multiplayer is well populated, graphically it is one of the most advanced titles, and it's loads of fun - specially when you go up on it's Competitive License.
It took SMS many years to make such progress with their own engine. They're very capable (as proven by GTR2), but to get to the level of consistency of the isiMotor2 was not an easy task.
2018 comes by, Kunos decided to use the Unreal Engine 4 for their next title, a smart move I might add. A very good engine, it has all the features a game developer might want.
Most of the engine and it's features are already developed.
In conclusion, I don't think it's the isiMotor that makes titles flop, I think the developers play the biggest role if this happens (same for the success of their titles). SMS developed what is considered one the best sim racing titles, using the isiMotor - and the same company developed what is considered one of the biggest disappointments of the genre with the release of Project Cars, a sim that uses it's own engine. Funny how when they stayed with a good engine base they did good progress, but when decided to create their own engine the game was a flop in reception - it had pretty graphics, sure, but the physics side of things can generate heated debates to this day.
Same goes for Kunos. Stefano and his team did a good job at developing a graphics engine that, while looking good, can only be lit by one source of light, so you have no night racing. It also lacks rain, among many other features.
The isiMotor was a powerful tool for those who have chosen to use it correctly, and it was also the doom of titles that used it poorly. The main problem for the isiMotor2, nowadays, is graphics, it still uses a DX9 engine. (somehow Sector3 did a great job on it graphics wise, it looks good and even more natural-looking than AC at times, and the physics are also good).
Physics wise the isiMotor2 is aging as well, but that is to be expected from a 13 years old engine.
And for rFactor 2, if ISI had focused a bit more on content, engine optimization, and graphics, rF2 could be the best sim ever made. I just hope S397 makes the right calls now and continue optimizing the engine while bringing content. The most important part, which is the physics, we already have and to me there's nothing that comes even close to it.
So what's your take on this?
(the vast majority of my reply to such topic was pasted - some parts were omitted for the sake of keeping the discussion here in RD clean).
(all of what was written bellow is what I perceive to be how the described events turned out. I can be wrong in one or multiple subjects, so don't be afraid of doing research to correct me on things)
(I ask that, if you find who made the original comment -which I censored-, do not bring this person up here. The point of this thread is to attack the argument, not the person)
----------------------------------------------------
ISI-powered games (which includes rF2) aren't a flop because of the engine itself, but because of developer/publisher bad decision making.
There's several reasons a lot of sims use the engine from rF1 as a base, the most common one being a great physics starter, but there's also the fact that it's a known piece of software that was used for several years in many great titles, it's historic relevance, and so on.
ISI did great titles in the past, like F1 Challenge '99-'0 (and some older F1 titles) where you got consistency in what cars and tracks to expect.
But then, for some reason, they decided not to do the same with rFactor 1.
Even some of these old F1 games were moddable, and for whatever reason ISI decided to leave most of the content creation for rFactor 1 in the hands of the community. This led to a big inconsistency in mod quality, of 1000 mods you could count on very few of these to be any good.
After rFactor 1, the glorious GTR2 came about. It was revolutionary in quite a few features, and content. It had all cars and tracks for the FIA GT series that spanned 2 full seasons, full 24h day/night transitions, rain, some basic real road technology, a driving school, animated pit marshals, and a bunch of features and consistency/focus not yet seen in the sim world for at least 12 years. It used the same isiMotor as a base and it was a success, still regarded today as one of the best simulators ever made (made by what is now SMS, the makers of Project Cars 1&2 ------ SimBin, the developers of Race07, Race On, and then later RaceRoom, had almost nothing to do with the development of GTR2).
Then a year later, SimBin used the same base engine for Race07, and while it still had great physics, graphically the engine started to show it's age, specially on the same year Crysis was released.
Still, the game is regarded as a great product.
Now in 2008, iRacing was released. No more bad cars, no more bad tracks. Not only it was consistent in content, graphically it was already surpassing anything isiMotor related that was released to that day.
I think many people migrated to iRacing because the overall experience was better not only graphically but in terms of cars and tracks as well, not to mention in multiplayer.
Then in 2011 Kunos started development of Assetto Corsa with an in-house engine. Physics and feature wise the title was a downgrade from their previous, netKar Pro, but graphically AC was step in the right direction. Still, the title lacked many core features even several years after it's release.
And yet again, people were migrating more to promises and shiny graphics rather than staying at stable core and good physics present in the rF1 engine.
It's understandable, though. If companies want to sell a bit more titles, they have to attract the eye of the audience as well.
At this point it is said that ISI had already started development on rFactor 2. In fact, there are records of development starting in 2009.
In 2012 the open beta of rFactor 2 was released. It was a huge step forwards in physics, being at least a decade ahead of any competition - sadly, ISI focused so much effort into 'just physics' that the title was broken in a lot of ways. The pricing model was horrible, it lacked documentation for modders which were now looking for an easier platform to mod since modding for rFactor 2 was too complicated because of the massive advance in physics (and so parameters as well).
That mentality of "let the community produce content" did work in 2005 because there was not many sim platforms to jump around, but it certainly didn't work for rFactor 2, specially after the release of iRacing with many official cars and tracks and later with the release of Assetto Corsa which also revolutionized sim racing in many, many ways.
In 2013 RaceRoom was released. Being regarded as merely a 'hotlap simulator' it lacked content, features, even multiplayer.
And even now, after 5 years of development, RaceRoom (the company, not to be confused with Sector 3 or even the game's name) somehow still has a poor pricing model, stupid online DRM, and not many features for the game. Users can't even change the tire pressure, the setup part of the simulation is still very basic, more basic than GTR2 in 2006.
Then Assetto Corsa was released. Shinny graphics, good documentation for modders and easy to mod (way simpler physics than rF2 or even rF1 from 2005 according to some known personas here in RD), a large community started growing around it. But to me, if it wasn't for the good price and moddability AC would end up close to what R3E is now, perhaps even worse considering how long it took for AI to come and be perfected, for instance (and that is, with a higher budget than what I think Sector3 has had).
A year later, SMS, which had developed GTR2 and was picked by EA to develop a few Need for Speed titles, developed Project Cars. Shinny graphics (probaby the best graphics of it's time), lots of content. The hype was good; the title, however, not so much. Shady physics, bug infested, players were not happy about it.
Still a year later, Automobilista came to be. Being regarded as one of the best racing titles out there, it lost a good deal of potential because Reiza didn't have money to license known tracks/cars, and the fact that they decided to use an ever graphically-aging engine didn't help the title. Still, it's regarded as one of the best when it comes to physics, force feedback, car/track polish, and sounds.
Reiza also did a good job with the isiMotor2 engine.
Again a year later, SMS released Project Cars 2. While improving a lot upon the first title, it's still quite buggy, physics change with every update and can be wonky at times, and their sound engineer should be fired.
Still, player count continues to increase. It has a name for itself, multiplayer is well populated, graphically it is one of the most advanced titles, and it's loads of fun - specially when you go up on it's Competitive License.
It took SMS many years to make such progress with their own engine. They're very capable (as proven by GTR2), but to get to the level of consistency of the isiMotor2 was not an easy task.
2018 comes by, Kunos decided to use the Unreal Engine 4 for their next title, a smart move I might add. A very good engine, it has all the features a game developer might want.
Most of the engine and it's features are already developed.
In conclusion, I don't think it's the isiMotor that makes titles flop, I think the developers play the biggest role if this happens (same for the success of their titles). SMS developed what is considered one the best sim racing titles, using the isiMotor - and the same company developed what is considered one of the biggest disappointments of the genre with the release of Project Cars, a sim that uses it's own engine. Funny how when they stayed with a good engine base they did good progress, but when decided to create their own engine the game was a flop in reception - it had pretty graphics, sure, but the physics side of things can generate heated debates to this day.
Same goes for Kunos. Stefano and his team did a good job at developing a graphics engine that, while looking good, can only be lit by one source of light, so you have no night racing. It also lacks rain, among many other features.
The isiMotor was a powerful tool for those who have chosen to use it correctly, and it was also the doom of titles that used it poorly. The main problem for the isiMotor2, nowadays, is graphics, it still uses a DX9 engine. (somehow Sector3 did a great job on it graphics wise, it looks good and even more natural-looking than AC at times, and the physics are also good).
Physics wise the isiMotor2 is aging as well, but that is to be expected from a 13 years old engine.
And for rFactor 2, if ISI had focused a bit more on content, engine optimization, and graphics, rF2 could be the best sim ever made. I just hope S397 makes the right calls now and continue optimizing the engine while bringing content. The most important part, which is the physics, we already have and to me there's nothing that comes even close to it.
So what's your take on this?
Last edited:
