rec.autos.simulators

Ok, I've spent all morning *** this up, and I hope that it is at least a start for creating a set of standards for making
tracks.  Note that this is a *proposal*, and any input or other ideas are more than welcome.  While I'm not going to go as far
as Fran?ois, I do agree that the open reverse-ability that Sandbox allows for a virtual quagmire of poor and slightly modified
tracks, all named the same thing.  What most have failed to realized in the "other" discussion is that with the GPL tools, you
couldn't grab someone else's track, open it up, modify the grip and a few graphics, and repost it.  With Sandbox you can...thus
someone could take Papy's texas, modify the grip to an unrealistic level, repost it without any documentation, and then cause
mayhem.  Drivers racing online cannot tell if a track is different, they only see a name and if their track is not the same they
won't be able to race there.  Pure confusion.  Plus, most want to know what they're getting before (or at least when) they
download.

If everyone likes this and chooses this as a starting point, I welcome all further suggestions to make this better, and ask that
everyone "spread the news".  You can also help by informing authors..."Hey, you posted a track the same name as "texas", and I'm
not downloading it unless you follow the TCG!"

Well, at any rate, here's the proposal...complete with version number!  :)

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Included is a proposed naming convention, a template for the included "readme" file, as well as a simple instructions for
filling out the readme.

Cheers!

This subject came up on the Sierra vboards too.  Here's what I posted
(massaged a bit after some more consideration):

What we really need is a single group/ clearinghouse to which all
3rd-party tracks are submitted - kinda like an ANSI committee.

This group would be responsible for evaluating each track for the
following:

1) Completeness - racing line, track-side graphics, horizons, setups,
and any other stuff that goes with a track.

2) Race-ability - we all know that ovals need at least two racing
lines to be "fun", and that road courses must have sections of the
track that allow/encourage passing, and test the whole car setup as
well as the driver's ability, including the necessity to shift at
up/down at the right spots.

3) Graphics - quality and appropriateness of the track-side graphics
and horizons (and both hi-res and lo-res graphics should be
supplied).

4) AI - the AI must be addressed for each track. There are still many
people who don't race online and simply need decent AI to keep them
interested in the sim.

5) Default setups - each track should come with at least the <easy>,
<moderate>, and <fast> setups. These setups should provide the level
of performance and durability that is indicative of their intended
purpose.

6) Installation - if it doesn't install painlessly, it's a hassle. If
it's a hassle, nobody will race on it.

This "committee" would test, and evaluate the track with the help of
volunteer testers, and would either pass or fail the track. If the
track fails, it is not included in the list of tested/approved
tracks. The track author can re-submit the track for approval when he
feels that all of the cited issues are addressed.

Once a track is "approved", it shouldbe made downloadable directly
from the track committee web site (to prevent "small improvements" by
the author to be made after the track was originally approved). The
track would be assigned a unique ID that will be made part of the
name of the track. This way, people can have 20 versions of Texas on
their system, but they'd be able to identify them all by their unique
id tag.

If everyone downloaded from an approved list, the quality of every
track should/would be generally higher, and everyone would be singing
from the same hymnal as far as track files go..

<snip>

Jan that sounds good.

One thing I'm wondering, could any of you guys whip up a real track
tutorial for things beyond the actual track file?  Sandbox is nice,
but it would be nicer if the guide it includes actually created a
drivable track.  Having a decent guide to the track.ini (and the bare
minimums needed in the track.ini in order for a track to load) would
be really cool, as I haven't been able to find one.

Jason

The all new John "Trotsky" Simmons... :)

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003

I was just trying to appease the one-king-rules-them-all ***
theorists. :)

"John Simmons" said:

That will never work I think...  Way too much work and too time consuming.
I think this will go the same way as with GPL - although in a much wilder
degree.. At first you'll see a hole shit load of really crappy stuff. Truly
idiotic work and most probably a whole pile of variations of the Papy
tracks..  Night, day, summer, winter, etc. etc.  But in the end - it's the
best ones that will prevail (sp?)....  The "kids" will move on to something
new and those of us who really love what we do will keep at it.

I wish a board or commitee would work -  but I don't think it will.

Might aswell open that core.ini the day the patch arrive and set the track
flag on at once :-/

--
eD_

Yeah well my point was perhaps "loud" and dramatic, but often it's a way to
make a point :)  I really fear the chaotic nature of this situation, people
perhaps underestimate the Nascar community versus the structure and
seriousness that the GPL community had.

Why would I be against people creating masterpiece tracks like there is in
GPL??? Unfortunate people...

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

The kids/immature/stupid ratio unfortunately with NR2003 is 100:1 the one
found in GPL.  That's what many people who didn't get my point, well.. they
don't get :)

A website like Magnus' GPL track database would be a great thing, to create
a good set of standard tracks, tracks that are "secure" as to the quality of
it's creation.  Once there's a good version of let's say, Watkins Glen with
the boot, there's no need to download another one.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

    But it's that one is what makes it all worthwhile.  ;o)

     Right  .  .  .  and now that Henry Ford has created the Model T there
is no need to create any more cars;  after all what could possibly be
improved on this "good version" ?

Sorry but I couldn't resist.  Will try to be stronger next time.  ;o)

Elrikk

Since when have you ever had a "point"?    =)

--
Scott B. Husted ?
http://www.Husted.cc

...since you stopped being in the "comma"  ;)

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- http://ymenard.cjb.net/
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

(I know, different grammar, but hey it's a pun)

Absolutely imperative that any site devoted to hosting track downloads
catalog their files in this manner.  I would prefer some kind of
searchable, sortable database for this kind of stuff.  The track
author could go a long way towards making this useful by completing a
catalog entry when they submit the file.

I don't see a need for a committee to spend a lot of time assessing
this before a track becomes available.  Good tracks will spread by
word of mouth just fine.  Perhaps some kind of community popularity
rankings might be in order?

Again, I think we can all make up our own minds... and word will get
around about the good stuff.  Personally, if a track has awesome
racing, the graphics become less important.

The availability of AI should be part of the cataloging in #1.

Again, this should be basic cataloging info.

Agreed.  Somebody needs to come up with a set of best practices for
distribution + install.

I don't necessarily agree with the committee approval part, but yes,
any hosting site must make it a big priority that the tracks have
unique names.  And of course, as the communinity it is our job to make
sure that we load only these well-documented tracks on our servers.  I
wish there was a way to include a comments area in the Sierra
connection screens where you could list something like "download our
tracks from this url"

Again, I think we can sift out the bad stuff as a community effort,
especially if track download sites and authors subscribe to some kind
of cataloging scheme.

Imagine a track, basically complete with good racing lines is made,
but for whatever reason, the author has to move on before he can make
the AI or do much in the graphics department, etc.  If that track is
never made available it will never have the opportunity to be finished
by someone else.

Agree 100% with the need to keep the names unique to ensure cataloging
is not a waste of time.