The author of this should learn something about what the game graphics actually means, than screwing up the hard work of the track modders by this painfully insensitive reshade postprocessing. Covering the tracks into bloomy fob, replacing the textures by even more ugly ones doesn't give him any right to rename the tracks to v2.0 - this is fucking disrespectful and reminds me Carlo with his RBR "PRO". Maybe the author could try to create v0.1 of his own track first... But yeah, as the game is "abandonware", I suppose even such activities are now the part of the game and nobody can do anything against it.
author here: just so you know, the "1.0" and "2.0" extensions of the tracks refer to the mod itself, not the respective stages and will be deleted when all stages have been adjusted up to par to this mods "2.0" version. At this point it is still in development.
And retextures have only been applied to the original stages (abandonware), not the ones created by modders.
And I strongly oppose to the notion that this is in any way like the RBR Pro situation:
- I´ve created new particle mods from scratch as others have done in the past, and are commonly referred to new tracks by the track creators themselves. - I have created new reshade presets as many others before me, and are widely used across all kind of games, including RBR. - I´ve retextured the original RBR stages as others have done before me. There are snow retextures of Japan and France, there is a gravel surface retexture of France, etc. you get the gist.
I just went one step further by creating them myself and combining them into one simple package.
But I´m happy to mark the stages in another way instead of a “2.0” (even if it is not referring to the stage itself but rather to the settings of my mod), if it is misleading. I actually tried really hard not to step on anybodys toes…
The author of this should learn something about what the game graphics actually means, than screwing up the hard work of the track modders by this painfully insensitive reshade postprocessing. Covering the tracks into bloomy fob, replacing the textures by even more ugly ones doesn't give him any right to rename the tracks to v2.0 - this is fucking disrespectful and reminds me Carlo with his RBR "PRO". Maybe the author could try to create v0.1 of his own track first...
OdpovědětVymazatBut yeah, as the game is "abandonware", I suppose even such activities are now the part of the game and nobody can do anything against it.
*fog
VymazatYes, this is exactly the kind of comment after which the author will rise up and go to do it better...
Vymazat:-(
The dust and water particles look very good, the rest to make montage videos is fine, but to use it in tournaments I don't like it, great job
OdpovědětVymazatauthor here: just so you know, the "1.0" and "2.0" extensions of the tracks refer to the mod itself, not the respective stages and will be deleted when all stages have been adjusted up to par to this mods "2.0" version. At this point it is still in development.
OdpovědětVymazatAnd retextures have only been applied to the original stages (abandonware), not the ones created by modders.
And I strongly oppose to the notion that this is in any way like the RBR Pro situation:
OdpovědětVymazat- I´ve created new particle mods from scratch as others have done in the past, and are commonly referred to new tracks by the track creators themselves.
- I have created new reshade presets as many others before me, and are widely used across all kind of games, including RBR.
- I´ve retextured the original RBR stages as others have done before me. There are snow retextures of Japan and France, there is a gravel surface retexture of France, etc. you get the gist.
I just went one step further by creating them myself and combining them into one simple package.
But I´m happy to mark the stages in another way instead of a “2.0” (even if it is not referring to the stage itself but rather to the settings of my mod), if it is misleading. I actually tried really hard not to step on anybodys toes…