rF2: Endurance Pack Updated

[Paul Jeffrey]

Studio 397 have recently updated the 'Endurance Pack' DLC for rFactor 2.

Deploying the content update back on March 21st, Studio 397 have released small updates to the cars contained within the Endurance Pack DLC for the simulation. Although not significant in size, the update does address some of the outstanding issues with the content in rFactor 2, and includes some performance optimisation of the individual car LOD's as well as BOP adjustments across the pack, the full details of which can be seen below:

Porsche 991RSR GTE v1.67

• BOP refuel time adjustment
  
• Fixed side mirrors in showroom
• Fixed see through vents and holes
• Fixed sorting issues with steering wheel and side windows

Corvette C7R GTE v1.69

• Optimized LODs
  
• BOP refuel time adjustment
  
• Mapping fix on bonnet
  
• Fixed side mirrors in showroom

BMW M8 GTE v1.43

• Fixed reversed oil and water values in the onboard HUD
  
• Optimized LODs
  
• BOP refuel time adjustment

Norma M30 LMP3 v1.65

• Optimized LODs

Oreca 07 LMP2 v1.51

• Optimized LODs
  
• Reflection fix on floor diffuser

rFactor 2 is a racing simulation exclusively available for PC.

For more news from the world of rFactor 2, check out the RaceDepartment rFactor 2 sub forum and join in with the community discussion. If you like racing in a clean and fun environment online, why not check out the RaceDepartment rFactor 2 Racing Club? Get yourself in on the action!

Like what we do at RaceDepartment? Follow us on Social Media!

 

 

[Slowdive]

They're not, quite why people still use this as an excuse to have a dig at sim devs is beyond me.

Because that's a business decision. Every dollar they pay to an artist who's doing a track or car is one less they are giving to an artist designing a UI. It's a zero sum game and they've clearly prioritized in a direction that many people disagree with.

 

[Denis Betty]

But @Slowdive where do the dollars to give to the artist designing the UI come from?
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly.

 

[Slowdive]

If they reinvest some of the revenue that is generated (and spend some of it on the core game), then that can only be a good thing IMO.

I also agree that lack of content is an issue. But it's a matter of priorities. All I'm saying is that for years people have been screaming about the UI and other fundamentals, but instead they have prioritized new content. When I first bought RF2 years ago, this was forefront in the reviews which read something like, "Good AI and driving experience, terrible UI and usability." This was spot on and hasn't changed since. Imagine all the sales they could've generated if they had fixed those glaring fundamentals rather than adding GT3 cars.

It's almost like a free to play model as the base game is so cheap at this point. If you don't get people to purchase or download your base content, they can't be there to buy your expensive DLC. Thus it seems from a financial standpoint they've shot themselves in the foot by not fixing up the base game first.

 

[Slowdive]

But @Slowdive where do the dollars to give to the artist designing the UI come from?
I know an old lady who swallowed a fly.

Read my response to Denis. You'd generate more money by growing your user base with a better core product. You'd also get a lot of people who currently own the game, but have boycotted the DLC until the core is fixed to also spend some money.

 

[Slowdive]

Have you read the March roadmap; I suggest you do

I saw the recent update on RD about the UI. Looks really nice and I eagerly look forward to it. But I'm not ready to pat them on the back yet until it's sitting on my computer.

 

[Case_]

You'd generate more money by growing your user base with a better core product. You'd also get a lot of people who currently own the game, but have boycotted the DLC until the core is fixed to also spend some money.

I assume you have the numbers to support your claims? Like, for starters, the rough number of people interested in getting rF2 but not getting it because the core product doesn't meet their standards? Or the amount of people who currently boycott DLC until the core is fixed?

Because if you don't, then you really don't have a leg to stand on here and are just making subjective claims presented as facts while suggesting you know better than S397 how they should run their business.

 

[mantasisg]

Because that's a business decision. Every dollar they pay to an artist who's doing a track or car is one less they are giving to an artist designing a UI. It's a zero sum game and they've clearly prioritized in a direction that many people disagree with.

It may not be doable. I don't know coding, but things might not be fragmented comfortably enough for a lot of people to work on it. To say anything it would be really appropriate to know how the coding works, and what is the architecture of the codes, for example, I don't even know how to call it - architecture ? structure ? elements ? fragments ? sections ?

 

[Denis Betty]

Because if you don't, then you really don't have a leg to stand on here and are just making subjective claims presented as facts while suggesting you know better than S397 how they should run their business.

Exactly this.
Still no reasonable response as to where @Slowdive would find the money to make all of these changes to the core game.

 

[Slowdive]

Because if you don't, then you really don't have a leg to stand on here and are just making subjective claims presented as facts while suggesting you know better than S397 how they should run their business.

As opposed to what you're doing?

 

[Case_]

As opposed to what you're doing?

What I'm doing is pointing out you seem to have no basis for your claims doing this or that would generate more interest and/or revenue, while suggesting S397 are at far better position to know how to run their business compared to you (for multitude of reasons, starting with the fact that...well, it's their business).

Outrageous, yes. I know.

So no numbers you can share with us, then, I gather?

 

[Slowdive]

What I'm doing is pointing out you seem to have no basis for your claims doing this or that would generate more interest and/or revenue, while suggesting S397 are at far better position to know how to run their business compared to you (for multitude of reasons, starting with the fact that...well, it's their business).

Outrageous, yes. I know.

So no numbers you can share with us, then, I gather?

I'll share my numbers when you share yours. The argument is whether S397 would be better off focusing on fixing some fundamentals rather than more DLC on top of a base with many flaws. You are asserting without evidence that their current course of action is the most profitable. I'm asserting without evidence that it is not necessarily the most profitable course of action.

So there you go.

 

[Case_]

You are asserting without evidence that their current course of action is the most profitable.

No, I am not. You can quote me where I'm saying that. I am "asserting" you have no proof for your claims that seem to suggest you know better than them how they should run their business. I can't talk about whether they *are* running it as profitable as they can, because I have no evidence (though they seem to be doing fairly well at least), but I can still suggest that between you and them, you are *way* more likely to not have any idea whether their hypothetical action would be more profitable or not. You just say it would be because you'd like that to be true.

I mean...you even seem to suggest there's a relevant enough number of people who "boycott" their DLC, and that alone seems like a pretty far fetched suggestion, given that barely anybody even mentions something like that, and not just here. Hence why I asked you for something to back your claims, which you have not provided.

 

[Denis Betty]

You are asserting without evidence that their current course of action is the most profitable.

I can't find this @Slowdive , could you point me to it please?
I'm still struggling with your line of reasoning. As Martin has said, you don't back up many of your claims (eg I asked you more than once to explain where 397 would get money for the core game without releasing paid DLC), yet the impression that I get (me personally) is that your opinions are presented as facts.
It's important to me that this doesn't descend into rhetoric or any of it be taken as personal, however reasoned debate should (IMO) be supported with some form of evidence. If you wanna voice an opinion, that's fine OC, but I think you risk misinforming people unless you make it clear whether your assertions are evidence based, or just your opinion.

 

[Case_]

(BTW, I will do my best to not continue this discussion unless it takes a more productive course, because it's obviously going nowhere currently.)

 

[Slowdive]

No, I am not. You can quote me where I'm saying that.

I mean...you even seem to suggest there's a relevant enough number of people who "boycott" their DLC, and that alone seems like a pretty far fetched suggestion, given that barely anybody even mentions something like that, and not just here.

In arguing against my position, you are taking the opposite side in the debate by default. My position is that S397 could improve their business by focusing on fixing outstanding issues and diverting resources to areas in need. You appear to disagree with that proposal and thus claim, that they are operating their business as efficiently as possible, a claim for which you have no evidence. Stating that I don't have access to their books is irrelevant as neither do you. Perhaps an examination of how they run the company could reveal gross mismanagement. In other words, your assertion that they know better is a claim made by you without evidence.

I hope that clears it up for you. It's all rather trivial really as we're both just speculating. I merely wanted to point out your logical fallacy.

 

[Slowdive]

I can't find this @Slowdive , could you point me to it please?
I'm still struggling with your line of reasoning. As Martin has said, you don't back up many of your claims (eg I asked you more than once to explain where 397 would get money for the core game without releasing paid DLC), yet the impression that I get (me personally) is that your opinions are presented as facts.
It's important to me that this doesn't descend into rhetoric or any of it be taken as personal, however reasoned debate should (IMO) be supported with some form of evidence. If you wanna voice an opinion, that's fine OC, but I think you risk misinforming people unless you make it clear whether your assertions are evidence based, or just your opinion.

I've stated several times that I'm merely presenting an opinion, based on decades of first hand experience with software development. But some people, like Martin, can't seem to stand opinions that aren't their own.

I believe I've already outlined how they could improve their bottom line by focusing on improving the core product. In a nutshell, it would result in more sales of the base game, thus more potential DLC sales, and far fewer detractors which most likely suppress their sales going forward. One only has to casually peruse any random RF2 thread to see considerable dissatisfaction with many aspects of the product. That can't be good for business.

 

[Case_]

In arguing against my position, you are taking the opposite side in the debate by default.

You appear to disagree with that proposal and thus claim, that they are operating their business as efficiently as possible, a claim for which you have no evidence.

No, I'm sorry, that's not how it works. Pointing out flaws in someone's arguments doesn't by itself mean you are claiming the exact opposite of what they are saying is true. You might *suggest* the opposite is more likely based on certain facts, but that's really not even close to being the same as claiming it is.

But some people, like Martin, can't seem to stand opinions that aren't their own.

I have no issue with opinions that aren't my own. I only have issue with opinions that don't make much sense based on what I've seen or what the circumstances seem to suggest, and/or can't be backed up with anything more than "this is how it is because I said so". Which is exactly what we're talking about here - you haven't posted a single piece of evidence or suggestion why your opinions should be considered valid. I at least have the fairly common sense argument of a long-running and I would say fairly successful company kinda knowing what they're doing backing my opinions (and, more importantly, poking holes in yours), and also the fact that barely anyone ever posts things that would point to your suggestions have at least some amount of weight in them (and if they do, it's the same handful of people many of which seem to post "considerable dissatisfaction" with every sim under the sun). You've got absolutely nothing. But by all means, if you want to put that on me for not being able to stand opinions of others, you're free to do so. I could argue that, but, as I've said before, there really doesn't seem to be a point since this is going absolutely nowhere, is it? (And I would not say it is because of me, since I merely asked you to provide some evidence to your claims which you seem unable to do, but then again I am of course biased, no matter how hard I try.)

 

[Denis Betty]

We're never gonna agree on very much. I agree that rF2 has clear room for improvement to the core game. It doesn't bother me as much as some people, because once I go on track, I don't notice/focus on the faults. I don't like endurance racing in modern cars and I very rarely race in single player, so my view of this is maybe skewed. I hope that you'd agree that game devs will never keep everybody happy though?

The latest road map appears to offer light at the end of the tunnel for many of the outstanding issues and I personally am happy with the pace of progress and the apparent balancing act that S397 are undertaking.

The core game or DLC discussion is a bit chicken and egg (or so it would seem), but if S397 had the money to fix the game first, and they could somehow suspend payments to any staff involved primarily in producing content, then maybe you have a point.... I just don't see it that way. Are you suggesting that the money to improve the base game would come from sales of the base game? Do you think they should have taken out a loan? Maybe they should have given over some say in the development/content/direction of the sim in order to secure finance from some publishing house?

OK I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but my point is that i really don't see how your arguments hold water. Yes there are people who aren't happy and post about it in (seemingly) almost every thread in the rF2 forum. I agree wholeheartedly that "That can't be good for business". But a quick look at other forums on RD will show that the same is true for other sims and that is why I've taken the time to reply to your comments and try to show others why I believe them to be so badly flawed.

Negative posts, which present opinion in such a way as to appear factual, eg "I wouldn't hold your breath. They've been saying that they're going to release a new UI for years, but instead have spent resources working on new DLC. Since I have considerable first hand experience to know how long it takes to develop a UI, I doubt they are serious, since it's on the order of months, not years." are I'm guessing, not gonna help sell copies? Well I'm not holding my breath, but like I said, I think it'll come. Glass half full.

 

[Slowdive]

No, I'm sorry, that's not how it works.

Yes, I'm afraid that is how it works. You made an argument that I was incorrect because S397 knew the business better than me and thus must be making the optimal business decisions. I suspect that you are only backtracking now because I pointed out that your knockout argument about their business acumen is purely subjective, and in point of fact just your opinion. Which is totally fine. I wouldn't try to discourage people from sharing their opinions. Just don't assume that your opinion is a fact.

...you haven't posted a single piece of evidence or suggestion why your opinions should be considered valid.

I presented the fact that I have industry experience, then I laid out a hypothetical situation in which they could generate more profit. I further explained the current challenges with regards to community sentiment and how an alternate course of action could help to address those issues. These aren't unreasonable leaps of logic here. If you are going to have some kind of standard that anyone talking about any developer must have perfect official inside knowledge and a market research study, well that's going to shutdown a lot of conversation, save official press releases.

I do have to agree with you that the conversation seems less than productive. All I can hope to achieve at this point is to expand your thinking to incorporate the concept that plebes on the forum who aren't yourself may have insight to contribute.

I honestly don't think Studio 397 or any other developer needs your help defending their business decisions. If they thought it was important enough, I'm fairly certain they could defend themselves.

Anyway, thanks for keeping the tone mostly civil.

 

[Case_]

I suspect that you are only backtracking now because I pointed out that your knockout argument about their business acumen is purely subjective, and in point of fact just your opinion.

All I can hope to achieve at this point is to expand your thinking to incorporate the concept that plebes on the forum who aren't yourself may have insight to contribute.