RSC/USPITS: Time for FILSCA to step up to the plate?

>Like any club, we have minimum rules for entry; you
>have to run a sim, you have to have certain rules in place, etc.
>These are normal rules and not draconian in the slightest.

I guess the part that makes me wonder is that those rules aren't posted
on the public side of the site. I can't see the harm myself.

I think the idea of a sanctioning body isn't a bad thing. It would be
nice to know that the next new track released met a minimum
quality/graphic standard (ie no invisible walls, no frame sucking
blimps)or a new mod needed a certain minimum spec. That's something
that a sanctioning body could do in a more consistant manner then is
happening now and it would provide a target for the developers.

I don't think it's too much more of a leap from there then to hosting
the "filsca certified" version of the track.

"mcewena" wrote:

> I don't think it's too much more of a leap from there then to hosting
> the "filsca certified" version of the track.

Except it would be a shed load of work. Defining minimum standards and the
debates around historical accuracy, quality and drivability and then testing
and verifying tracks and mods. The hosting is built around a set of tools
enabling the leagues to provide updates themselves (which seems poorly
utilised even then).

FILSCA aims of unifying the sim community and using it as a basis for
competing for the FPS money stakes just hasn't been realised simply because
it is a niche in comparison and despite a lot of effort by a few there just
isn't the sustainable mass to drive it forward. The relative lack of content
on the FILSCA site is testament to that. Therefore the end result is a very
watered down but nonetheless useful set of tools for leagues.

All IMHO of course

Cheers
Tony

>Except it would be a shed load of work.

Yep, you know of any sanctioning body that's not? If it wasn't who
would need one?

As pretty as their results pages and webzeen is, for any of the leagues
I'm in it's duplication of effort. However something that we always
struggle with (and I suspect other leagues do too) is what tracks are
suitible to use (track length, graphics requirements, style/era,
availibility, etc). The ratings on the track database are of some help
but they're very subjective and have been hacked.

NR tracks are even worse as everybody seems to have their own
track.ini...

"mcewena" wrote:

> >Except it would be a shed load of work.
>
> Yep, you know of any sanctioning body that's not? If it wasn't who
> would need one?

In an admittedly obscure way that was my point. FILSCA provides the tools
for league admins rather than fulfilling the role of a sanctioning body.

For all the good intentions clubs run by its members never seem to achieve
much because it lacks leadership, the motivation to perform for those
reliant upon you and the direction is unclear. Electing an enigmatic leader
with a mandate and enduring the pain until the next coup or election after
he has gone clinically insane is the only way forward!

Alternatively conclude that a real sanctioning body for sim racing is going
to be a thankless task with no end gain and a political struggle to boot and
settle for a nice cup of tea and an iced bun in front of the TV...

Cheers
Tony

"Tony Rickard" > wrote in message
k...
> "mcewena" wrote:
>
> > >Except it would be a shed load of work.
> >
> > Yep, you know of any sanctioning body that's not? If it wasn't who
> > would need one?
>
> In an admittedly obscure way that was my point. FILSCA provides the tools
> for league admins rather than fulfilling the role of a sanctioning body.
>
> For all the good intentions clubs run by its members never seem to achieve
> much because it lacks leadership, the motivation to perform for those
> reliant upon you and the direction is unclear. Electing an enigmatic
leader
> with a mandate and enduring the pain until the next coup or election after
> he has gone clinically insane is the only way forward!
>
> Alternatively conclude that a real sanctioning body for sim racing is
going
> to be a thankless task with no end gain and a political struggle to boot
and
> settle for a nice cup of tea and an iced bun in front of the TV...
>
> Cheers
> Tony

You're probably right when it comes to the vast majority of clubs/leagues,
but RASCAR is running smooth as silk. :-)
--
David G Fisher

>"Tony Rickard" > wrote
> However, the script writers got a bit carried away IMHO with talks of
> moving
> sim racing up to Quake match status with the associated prize money and
> the
> recognition of our sport. Sim racing is a relative niche market compared
> to
> online FPS.
>
> Also announcing FILSCA as the first world sanctioning body for sim racing
> suggests some authority and from where?



They probably are either 1) extremely naive or 2) never heard of the NROS
and it's total failure.






--
-- François Ménard <ymenard>
-- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez
Corporation - helping America into the New World...

"ymenard" > wrote in message
. ..
> >"Tony Rickard" > wrote
> > However, the script writers got a bit carried away IMHO with talks of
> > moving
> > sim racing up to Quake match status with the associated prize money and
> > the
> > recognition of our sport. Sim racing is a relative niche market compared
> > to
> > online FPS.
> >
> > Also announcing FILSCA as the first world sanctioning body for sim
racing
> > suggests some authority and from where?
>
>
>
> They probably are either 1) extremely naive or 2) never heard of the NROS
> and it's total failure.


Hehe, we found something to agree on.

"Tony Rickard" > wrote in message
k...
>
> FILSCA aims of unifying the sim community and using it as a basis for
> competing for the FPS money stakes just hasn't been realised simply
because
> it is a niche in comparison and despite a lot of effort by a few there
just
> isn't the sustainable mass to drive it forward. The relative lack of
content
> on the FILSCA site is testament to that. Therefore the end result is a
very
> watered down but nonetheless useful set of tools for leagues.
>

Well, since GPL (old sim with old cars with little mass appeal to the
naked eye) and Nascar (little world wide appeal and not even a great deal of
appeal to many yanks) are the only real online sims to date, I'd put this
down to most of the reason for what you say about a lack of widespread
interest and participation in sim racing. Look at how pitiful the situation
is - 2005 and no multi sim for F1, GTP or Champ Cars. If someone had told me
this would be the case back in 1998 I'd have laughed at them.

Now if anyone wants to know who's screwing the sim racing community, no
doubt the answer is in the greedy arseholes representing these sports that
want an arm and a leg for licencing that shouldn't even need to be paid at
all. Anyone looking for a good conspiracy theory need look no further than
this.

>Look at how pitiful the situation
>is - 2005 and no multi sim for F1, GTP or Champ Cars. If someone had
told me
>this would be the case back in 1998 I'd have laughed at them.

> Now if anyone wants to know who's screwing the sim racing
community, no
>doubt the answer is in the greedy arseholes representing these sports

But that's a catch-22, to market to new buyers the manufacturors feel
they need a brand name (you more or less implied branding is important
yourself), therefore the licence holders have something that is in
demand...

If you were new to sim racing and you were walking past a retail shop
window would you honestly buy something called "Generic Racer"?

LFS has avoided this by having generic looking cars and not selling
thru retail channels but they're also never likely to sell as many
copies as any of the shrinkwrap crowd (it's not like grand dad is going
to download a copy for xmas). I suspect if LFS ever did get
successful and they had a car called a Maclaren F1 (mac instead of mc)
racing against the "Farrari" Enzo they'd be hearing from Ron Denis's &
Fiat's lawyers fairly quickly.

"mcewena" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >Look at how pitiful the situation
>>is - 2005 and no multi sim for F1, GTP or Champ Cars. If someone had
> told me
>>this would be the case back in 1998 I'd have laughed at them.
>
>> Now if anyone wants to know who's screwing the sim racing
> community, no
>>doubt the answer is in the greedy arseholes representing these sports
>
> But that's a catch-22, to market to new buyers the manufacturors feel
> they need a brand name (you more or less implied branding is important
> yourself), therefore the licence holders have something that is in
> demand...
>
> If you were new to sim racing and you were walking past a retail shop
> window would you honestly buy something called "Generic Racer"?
>
> LFS has avoided this by having generic looking cars and not selling
> thru retail channels but they're also never likely to sell as many
> copies as any of the shrinkwrap crowd (it's not like grand dad is going
> to download a copy for xmas). I suspect if LFS ever did get
> successful and they had a car called a Maclaren F1 (mac instead of mc)
> racing against the "Farrari" Enzo they'd be hearing from Ron Denis's &
> Fiat's lawyers fairly quickly.
>

All true. But why should they have a say in who makes a computer
sim/game based on their racing series? Why should they be able to charge for
that? It's a mis use of law! They are supplying nothing - no work on their
part. And these sims/games are good advertising for them also. The only
result of this is that these arseholes, and the lawyers/judges, make a
killing for doing sweet **** all. Developers waste resorces on this and we
pay more for less - that's completely ****ed!