i dont think he knows either ; my assumption is that he lives in a sealed room and the only contact he has with the outside world that is authorized is screenshots Andi
TBH, I'm glad to find out not being the only one that does not understand the content/meaning of his posts... Thanks for clearing that up to me
Nah, biosport is our Nostradamus, speaking in cryptic verses. What he meant was that he'd like RR to have the same kind of session info and data as AC. And he also got a point about LB challenge vs race sessions cause in race sessions the conditions are more "realistic". In LB challenges you got perfect conditions and certain variables, like tyre temp f. e., don't change, so times from a race or training session are in some way more "representative".
Inside -sim Racing did an extensive, 40 minutes long day-one review of AC on PS4, XBox (and PC). Plenty of visual material to compare. I admit that relativizes many of the complaints about visual bugs and all that bad stuff they yell about. If that isrepresentative for the console versions what they show there, then the title is fine, I'd say. LINK VIDEO 8:50: "The driving experience of Assetto Corsa on the consoles is pretty awesome...." 11:15 "Assetto Corsa on the consoles is the best looking racing game I have ever seen." 12:04 "What I like about Assetto Corsa graphics is that they are just very clean. (...) It has a very great sense of speed." He points out some questionable things, too, which mostly are design decisions for certain features. The general verdict however is extremely positive.
"You guys on the PC, you know already how it works, you know already that these guys on the consoles, they are in for a treat, they are in for updates after updates of improvments, (...) I repeat this over and over again: I dont think software is ever done." This video does not only show that Kunos' boss Stefano Cassilo is a good guitar player and watches out for some groupies to hire , but from 15:15 on he speaks about what they want to achieve on consoles, why he is satisfied with the reviews they get on consoles, and that players on console really must understand that they are not in for just another typical console game, but for a simulator like there has not been any before on console. He also indicates - oncer again - that they do not depend on great financial success of Ac on consoles. (Their core business that earns them their brwd and butter is real life simulator software, if you have not known that). He makes it clear that they neither plan nor think that they could compete with the much bigger teams behind Forza and Gran Turismo, and that AC probably is a bad investment for players who do not like the driving as a sufficient experience in itself and do not get satisfaction from hotlapping in a bid for trying to improve their driving and laptime as goals valid and sufficient for themselves. That commenting by his is not haughty at all, it simply is true. I recommend to really listen in from 15:15 on, that are some very vital words of truth about AC on consoles, and why they did this. Between the aim of normal console racer releases, and AC's aim on consoles, there is a very huge difference, and I think many console players underestimate that. LINK VIDEO
There are many comments on NeoGAF mentioning screen tearing and frame rate fluctions for both PS4 and Xbox One. Did ISR mention this at all?
I think the screen tearing in the console build is excessive and Kunos really need to address that as soon as possible. It isn't playable for me because the tearing is even worse than a known issue on my hybrid GPU in Forza Apex.
I think I saw a vid from ISR mention it briefly, but not really focus there video review/overview on that specific topic. I have however, seen it mentioned far more prominently in other video reviews. One from Angry Centaur Gaming ripped into AC for all the tearing on the console versions. Frankly, while I personally love the thought of a real sim coming to consoles since that is where I started 15-20 years ago, I think this was always going to be an immense task for Kunos to port the PC version to the PS4 and XB1 simply because they are running on hardware surpassed in power by PC hardware from 2011... and the XB1 may be surpassed by hardware even older than that. Stefano their programmer said they had an in-house team of primarily 3 guys working on the port. That is one hell of a task for 3 guys. Turn 10 and Polyphony have teams of 400+ working on their games, so 3 guys is peanuts. The results do seem to reflect that too however. Namely, lacking features like rebinding controls, HUD options, and other things that console games (let alone PC games) should come with by default. Of course, they can patch those in later, but hey, that just means it didnt release with that stuff, and that is an issue. Easier said than done, especially given the hardware limitations of the consoles. They surely could have made the game look worse and gain some fps, but that probably wouldnt please everyone, having a game that looks like rF1 on current gen consoles Besides that, they cant just pump out patches and updates hoping something will work. There is a lengthy console certification process for patches that have to be verifeid by Sony/Micro$oft before they go live. Not to mention a fee involved with that process making lots of patches in quick succession very spendy for the studio. I am curious though... since you have the game for PC already, why did you buy it for console? There isnt much reason when you already own the PC version, and already know it is superior in every way. Not only that, but why in the world did you buy the console version with how much incessant complaining you do about AC? It reached a pinnacle a few weeks ago after a few wild tirades on their forum resulting in your ban. Seems quite odd to then go on and buy their product once more after all that Cheers
I get the joke you are making, and it is funny... But I gotta say, most issues people have reported on their forums (and even here for R3E) are mostly non-issues. People thinking there is an issue/problem when in fact there isnt. For instance, someone saying the gear ratios on the Ferrari 488 are wrong based on a youtube video... when Kunos gets data directly from the manufacturer. Or people clamoring onto the belief of a console physics downgrade (on the PC version) and then repeating that fluff continually and claiming it is an issue in their bug report forums. Of course there are real issues and bugs, and those are noted there, just like they are here. The ease at which they can be reproduced and fixed though is another story
True. I have a list of what I (and a lot of other people) see as issues, but either there is no answer at all, or it is addressed as what I quoted above, or - in a few cases - they point at third party solutions. With this workaround I can live, but imo they are either too lazy (or incompetent) to fix it in-game. Console players will be left in the dark as far as these workarounds go...
That ISR review is almost 40 minutes long and show extensive ingame footage. What did you see? Somebody else'S subjective comments are just this: comments on his subjective opinion. His and your standards may comoare, or not. You do not know. I saw occasional tearing in the ISR review and in another review done by somebody else I also saw occasional frame rate drops. More I cannot say without having tested AC mnyself on my own PS. Since I do not plan to invest into AC and hweel for PS, more I will not say for a long time to come. I read from some guys it is excessive and deal-breaking, and from others I read it is okay or that one gets used to it, and gets also plenty of compensation from the driving quality. The one guy's major issue is the other guy's "whats the matter?". I often got locked into discussions in the past when someobdy wanted to convince me that screens below 100Hz are "unplayable", and that frame rates of 60 like I use to have are "unplayable" as well. Sorry, I do not take such comments serious. "Unplayable"means something different. And that comes from somebody who recalls times when games had frames below 20 fps. And Fanapryde, has it ever come to your mind that that they "ignore" you may have something to do with that maybe you simply do not understand certain issues right? For example you have explained that the tyres do not warm up correctly and cannot be kept at their optimal temp. But fact is that it has been said long time ago already that the tyres work correctly now ("as designed"), but that a certain data output with their temperatures that feeds the temp display in tyre apps, did not hold the correct values. The app showed wrong temps, therefore, becasue the wrong variable was used to feed it. The tyres now are what they have been before, either model 10 or model 7, but the tyre app in AC now works correctly. Physics was not the issue here, just an erratic app, due to erratic data out-read. - If I were a dev and have explained in the past that it is like this, and that I intend to fix it in the next build, and the issue gets brought up nevertheless again and again, then I would ignore that sooner than later too, and mark it as "as designed". Why repeating myself again and again? The app works for sure now, in GT3, sports cars, small sportscars and hypercars I tested. I see huge and fast chnages at times, like they should change, and find it easy to keep them in their optimal temp range according to the display. I drive as usual, however. The ptch readme also lists somethign with corrected tyre variable output, whether this connects to this issue or is something different, I do not know, I am no technician. Just saying. Finally, its worth to note what Stefano said in his stream that I linked. He said they hold no target mark for consoles, and that they indeed just want to test and see whether there could be a market for AC on consoles, or not. The reactions there have been so far, he expected, he said. It seems to be not the case that they desperately depend on an economic success there, though it would be welcomed, of course, they just want to find out whether a hardcore simulator is somethign that the console audience would appreciate, or not, sticking to the usual console - and more arcade-styled - games instead. He also indicated that they will not give up the hardcore focus of Ac just to please whining play-kiddies that think they must nevertheless be able to win a race if they spin out. That does not happen in realitly and it does not happen in AC. You spin - race is dead for you, period. Live with it, adapt to it, learn to become a better driver, the fault is not in the sim, since it is a simulator, the fault is completely in you. He welcomes reviews being critical about the steep difficulty level in AC, for it helps kids to assess what they get, and maybe helps them to now waste their money for something they do not wish to spend their money for, or cannot handle. He also made it clear that the released console versions will get a stream of updates, like the PC version. Lets see what AC will look like in the future. Kunos has gotten attacked so often of promising more than they delivered and then showed that they delivered every single promise they have made, until today. All advertised features and stuff got delivered, and all aspects of the title get constantly worked on and improved - since almost two years after release now.
That's the point with console gaming. ISRs review is more or less useless because those guys represent pretty much the opposite to the average console gamer. If you go consoles you have to go mass market, aim for average. Why did Pcars sell a million copies? Because they catered that audience. So if I want to assess its reception, I go and look at the regular gaming review sites: http://www.trustedreviews.com/assetto-corsa-review http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2016/08/25/assetto-corsa-ps4-review-misero-turismo/ https://www.destructoid.com/review-assetto-corsa-383268.phtml http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/assetto-corsa/critic-reviews I think Trusted Reviews' conclusion reflects the perception of an average (=not sim racing affine) console gamer: Why are there no user ratings on metacritic or ign by now? Because most people who are looking for what AC delivers already have it on their PC. Some might buy it for curiosities, others for completionists sake. But what it looks like (to me) Kunos have done is they went to the fish market with a slab of kobe beef. Some of the people looking to buy fish will be curious and have a taste, some who have eaten kobe before will remember it and have another dish, but the main audience will buy what they came for.
Stefano said he appreciates the critical console reviews as well, for it helps to clear console player'S minds of illusions. That is what the ISR review does as well. A console player then knows in advance what focus the sim has, and that he should not compare it to the driving of typical console racers. Two days ago I read somebody attacking AC, saying that he were an experienced sim race driver knowing well how a car should behave and what realistic physics are, and to give evidence for his competence he listed his references: Forza 1-5, Gran Turismo, Project Cars, Need for Speed... Hilarious! You have not understood what AC'S chance on console is. They are a team of 30 people. Polyphony and Studio 10 have each over 400 people. Stefano said it would be indecent to assume that they could outdo such huge companies with so many working staff. Also, Forza and Gran Turismo have an established large community, and a history of titles. Now you say AC should serve the usual taste of console players - but that would be the recipe for sinking their ship. First, it would violate their claim that driving-wise they would not tone down the experience from the PC, and then they would be attacked once again. And second, if they do it like all other console titles, they would be just one amongst many others, and their main selling point would be void. You could not discmrinate them from the others, but see that their content is smaller (cars, tracks) - that is the formula to score a defeat. Their selling strategy is right that they are this different in what they deliver. They say they cannot assess and are clueless on whether this works or not. They simply do not know whether they have a market with this approach, and content, on consoles. The main purpose currently is to find out about this. What makes them different from the other console games - right that is the main point of their selling strategy. Console players should not approach this with expectations of getting just another console game. And any critical review pointing that out, Stefano said, he appreciates, for it helps to make this point clear. He said he expected these critical reviews. A metascore of 78 at the time he did his stream was what he said was expected, and okay for their goals. That is nicely put and could turn out true - or not. We will know better in some time. Also, we should but cannot factor in the strema of updates that Stefano announced in his stream. Some of the updates for the PC were really dramatic.
Well, if I were a dev, I would have fixed it right away, no matter if it was due to a wrong tire model, or (even easier) a wrong output. Though I think it is of a major importance in a "sim", it has been there for months...and still is. The whole thing still does not work correctly ! And (related) like a lot of others I also want the choice between PSI and BAR. How hard can it be ? There are a lot more issues in AC, but it is of no use discussing them with you, since you seem to keep your eyes shut for every one of them in AC. That is not counting the "issue" YOU had with the AI being too fast, an "issue" that was not one for countless other people, (including me)... remember ? AI is a bit better behaving after the last patch, but is still way too slow (at 100% that is).
Sounds as if you have the ability to do evertyhing at once and your day has unlimited ammount of hours. I assume a dev has a long list of things that needs to be done, but he has to prioritize them, due to economic needs as well as varying importance for the content quality. Do you know how many main coders the small Kunos team has? Of those ~30 guys, the overwhelming majority are art designers. One guy does tracks, one guy does physics, one guy does sounds, and Stefano does the main coding, having I think I read one or two co-coders. I think it is a safe bet that they have their hands full with work. And every aspect of that work has its fan group saying that this aspect is more important than the others. That a player thinks this or that must be done, changed, included, does not necessarily mean that it indeed must be changed, done or included. Or in Stefanos words from the past when he once vented his frustration about some people: what an individual player thinks or demands to be a priority, must not necessarily be what a bigger group of players indeed wants, or can be changed immediately, or is economically sustainable. Also, players have the freedom to conclude that a given title just is not for them. You want bar and psi as options, fine. Its not as if the lack of this option breaks the game. Others want miles in cars that show kilometers, or the othe rway around, while the sim shows the cars with the tacho layout as it is in reality in factory status. Which option weighs heavier? I think there are more important things to focus work on. Personally, i wanted a separatioin of skill and aggresison sliders for the AI, or a season editor like we have in Raceroom. The first is being worked on, though it is unclear whether they will release it for sure, the latter I have to learned to not miss, though it was said it also is being worked on, release uncertain. None of these things "breaks" the game.
Not really, I'm saying they shouldn't even have tried. What else is the use of going consoles if not broadening the user base? But that's what those reviews tell (me), that the average console user isn't looking for the puristic sim driving experience AC offers. It won't turn out a financial disaster, the cost seems to have been manageable (3-guy team etc.) but I'm questioning whether it was worth the effort, if they couldn't have put those ressources to better use by improving their product instead of tweaking it so it attracts more/different users, most of which don't appear to be really interested in what they have on offer. They can be proud of themselves for having managed to port their unique experience to consoles all day long, but if that doesn't translate into sales it was a wasted effort. For now everybody can just wait for sales figures. Guess the plain fact whether they will release exact numbers will tell whether it was a risk worth taking.