Assetto Corsa PC Mods General DiscussionPC 

  • Thread starter Thread starter daan
  • 152,015 comments
  • 46,479,341 views
the same for me. I've tried to change the our of the day, and the issue dissapears and appare on other textures.
I've also some trees with a wrong trunk direction.
View attachment 1318646

Also some there are some pink textures (some billboards, one light on the starting line, a man inside the race control building)
it's a real shame, this track is well made, and it's a great test track.
It would be nice if some expert took care of it and gave this track a good wash...
We hope !!!
 
Any help on this please
I have found that when cars are not moving forward it's not the track that is the issue, but the modded cars themselves. Keep in mind what cars are not moving and if they are the same cars in every track.

If it is indeed the car, 99.5% of the time this is what the issue is for me

1705078755270.png
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

Has anybody made better AI for KJRacing's Le Mans 1970 track ? The AI seem to like to turn into the armco at Arnage...
Just a follow up to this post...

The problem seems to be the "new AI behavior" setting in CSP. Turning that off, the AI actually runs the track instead of running into the barriers...
 
"they (LFM) added the tracks RAtl, WGI, and Road America to their AC schedule without the courtesy of asking the creators' permission first. John reached out to Boris to ask on this and was denied the courtesy again, despite having it written on the mod's page. Response was the benefit of "showcasing the mod", as if that track didn't already have 100k+ downloads. So LilSki followed suit."

Discussion I saw is in Jake's (GPLaps) Discord, and starts here:
I don't even know what LFM is :lol:
 
Sorry, don't have that much time due to work, but just saw that a better config is needed here.
I found an old version I made long ago and quickly adapted it to newer CSP versions. I hope it fits so far.
Grass can be optimized, it´s a first trial.
Definitely a good improvement 👍
 
X90
I'd like a little more context for this, and perhaps a link with the discussion, if you could.

It does not read well to me for either of these guys at face value. I assume there's nuance I'm missing.
There is no link to any discussion that I can share. Lilski came on RSS discord and explained at length what happened but it spiraled out of control and the discussion was terminated. I know that John has found his resources used in other peoples projects and recently some decided to modify his content to suit their needs and publish it. He may be back at some point but I would not hold my breath. He has been down on the community for a bit. It reads quite fine for those two guys. They have paid work they are doing and were doing free content on the side. Since the community disrespected their wishes, no more content. Pretty simple really.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, don't have that much time due to work, but just saw that a better config is needed here.
I found an old version I made long ago and quickly adapted it to newer CSP versions. I hope it fits so far.
Grass can be optimized, it´s a first trial.
For a first try it's very good!!! Thanks!!!
 
There is no link to any discussion that I can share. Lilski came on RSS discord and explained at length what happened but it spiraled out of control and the discussion was terminated. I know that John has found his resources used in other peoples projects and recently some decided to modify his content to suit their needs and publish it. He may be back at some point but I would not hold my breath. He has been down on the community for a bit. It reads quite fine for those two guys. They have paid work they are doing and were doing free content on the side. Since the community disrespected their wishes, no more content. Pretty simple really.
At face value, I'd disagree that it reads fine - you run the risk - nay, the eventuality - of others stealing your work when you release content/assets on an open platform like this. In this case, whether it be trees, road mesh, track decorations, etc. - there are going to be bad actors out there that see your work as a shortcut and steal without asking - especially with that sweet Patreon profit within arm's reach. There are plenty of obvious examples of this - including a certain someone who was just removed wholesale from Breathe's list.

It's a fact of life, and one I personally have experienced making content for other games and open source platforms. It stinks, but it's extremely naive, and perhaps a bit curmudgeon-y, to expect anything different when pretty much any unencrypted piece of content is openable in the .kn5 editor. Qualifier: of course, it goes without saying that a "slight re-tweak" and entire re-release of a full track is unacceptable and should be marked for take-down.

That being said, to paint the "community" with such a broad stroke and pull all their content permanently reads like sour grapes, and "I'm taking my ball and going home" type of energy. Which, considering my many years of reading these guys' comments and interactions on RaceDepartment, I wouldn't be surprised with - they are impeccable modders and have done an incredible service for the hobby, but all three seem to be abrasive individuals who don't think twice to pass damning judgment on others (their constant drive-by comments on Reboot Team and their conversions at every opportunity a few years ago being a primary example). I'm not sure I'd ever want to share a beer with any of them, to be honest.

However, it does seem to go deeper than that first read. I have seen Low Fuel Motorsport as a positive, not for profit force for good in Sim Racing, but if this pissing match is as described, I am extremely disappointed in them. It is basic decency and common courtesy to at least attempt approval for these mods from the makers themselves - only if you don't receive a response after a month or so would you make the decision to go ahead.

It's hard to believe Boris basically told them to shove it when asked for permission from the authors - that would be an extremely childish and bull-headed response if true. Of course, it's unsubstantiated - this is only one side of the story, and on first blush, I can't find any evidence of this conversation from LFM, other than that there are no Lilski/JohnR/Fat-Alfie tracks slated for the new season. It's all hearsay - the worst kind of evidence. Again, though, if true, it's a good thing that their tracks are unavailable for LFM, and this is a much more understandable reason to pull these mods - at least temporarily until this is resolved.

The whole thing is just disappointing to read. A lot of this reads quite like corporate pissing and skullduggery, but it stinks that these fairly extreme conflicts are part of such a community-driven platform. You'd think that a "permission" issue would be quickly resolved - "oh, sorry mate, that was our fault, we'll gladly promote your mods on socials if you give us permission" - "all right, you have permission, thanks for the clear-up, but always ask for permission in the future" "no, thank you for letting LFM run these excellent tracks, we'll always ask going forward" etc. Maybe 10 minutes of an adult conversation.

Perhaps I expect too much.
 
Last edited:
X90
At face value, I'd disagree that it reads fine - you run the risk - nay, the eventuality - of others stealing your work when you release content/assets on an open platform like this. In this case, whether it be trees, road mesh, track decorations, etc. - there are going to be bad actors out there that see your work as a shortcut and steal without asking - especially with that sweet Patreon profit within arm's reach. There are plenty of obvious examples of this - including a certain someone who was just removed wholesale from Breathe's list.

It's a fact of life, and one I personally have experienced making content for other games and open source platforms. It stinks, but it's extremely naive, and perhaps a bit curmudgeon-y, to expect anything different when pretty much any unencrypted piece of content is openable in the .kn5 editor. Qualifier: of course, it goes without saying that a "slight re-tweak" and entire re-release of a full track is unacceptable and should be marked for take-down.

That being said, to paint the "community" with such a broad stroke and pull all their content permanently reads like sour grapes, and "I'm taking my ball and going home" type of energy. Which, considering my many years of reading their comments and interactions on RaceDepartment, I wouldn't be surprised with - they are impeccable modders and have done an incredible service for the hobby, but they seem to be abrasive individuals who don't think twice to pass damning judgment on others (their constant drive-by comments on Reboot Team and their conversions at every opportunity a few years ago being a primary example). I'm not sure I'd ever want to share a beer with any of them, to be honest.

However, it does seem to go deeper than that first read. I have seen Low Fuel Motorsport as a positive, not for profit force for good in Sim Racing, but if this pissing match is as described, I am extremely disappointed in them. It is basic decency and common courtesy to at least attempt approval for these mods from the makers themselves - only if you don't receive a response after a month or so would you make the decision to go ahead.

It's hard to believe Boris basically told them to shove it when asked for permission from the authors - that would be an extremely childish and bull-headed response if true. Of course, it's unsubstantiated - this is only one side of the story, and on first blush, I can't find any evidence of this conversation from LFM, other than that there are no Lilski/JohnR tracks slated for the new season. It's all hearsay - the worst kind of evidence. Again, though, if true, it's a good thing that their tracks are unavailable for LFM, and this is a much more understandable reason to pull these mods - at least temporarily until this is resolved.

The whole thing is just disappointing to read. A lot of this reads quite like corporate pissing and skullduggery, but it stinks that these fairly extreme conflicts are part of such a community-driven platform. You'd think that a "permission" issue would be quickly resolved - "oh, sorry mate, that was our fault, we'll gladly promote your mods on socials if you give us permission" - "all right, you have permission, thanks for the clear-up, but always ask for permission in the future" "no, thank you for letting LFM run these excellent tracks, we'll always ask going forward" etc. Maybe 10 minutes of an adult conversation.

Perhaps I expect too much.
1.png

I don't think it is just the lfm thing, seems to also be a case of people making "fixes" to work and republishing them as their own (like EASY was doing with some tracks from various authors)

from the RD Goodwood circuit page
2.png
 
Last edited:
Pitstop Karting Narvskaya v0.9 Release

I've never been a proper kart racer or even a half decent one but I do love this place in my hometown very much. Also, looks like its gonna be a great fit for those low BHP Hachiroku drifts! Kei cars feel here at home too, but as if they grew up in to full sized vehicles:D

There are two configurations: 10 pits for AI races, 22 pits for PvP races.
AI functionality was tested on stable CSP version 1.79 (on CPS v2.0 bots might behave weird)
  • Lighting
  • GrassFX
  • RainFX

DL1: https://boosty.to/rustyrussell84/posts/2becb8a9-49bd-4806-9d62-6ef7347af2cb?share=post_link

DL2: https://www.racedepartment.com/downloads/pitstop-karting-narvskaya.66251/

 
Last edited:
Mazda rx-8 LM Fictional gt500 skin 2-4k

car made by no one cares


shying away from doing 6k skins, when i get up there in the layers my computer struggles so i decided to just do 2-4k to save my own sanity. 2k skin in the car's main folder just swap out the .dds file and your good to go

I have had to change a shader value here and there so may aswell just let the skin out with the car. I have changed nothing else

just for fun

one of my fave car's in the game.

Installation: drag and drop to CM




Screenshot (370).png
 
Last edited:
I'll have to dig veeeerrrrrryyyyyyyy deep to find motivation to do 2013. Maybe for fun I'll convert the classic cars.

2006, I'm not going to do it, doesn't mean you won't have one, TheRaceProject is trying to remaster it, and i'm helping him in that task by converting all the aero kit updates from the CTDP mod (😭😭😭)

2012, I won't do it myself, but another modder wanted to give it a try (named forbys)

Early 2000s, Not interested. I'm happy enough with MSF 2004 mod.

late 90s, Only season I was somewhat interested in doing (1999) is already being done by someone else in this forum.


TLDR : No

Also on a wider view, I doubt I'll do another full season, I would have done 3 full seasons (2008, 2010, 2011) and the FVA mod which would make a total of 42 cars converted for Assetto Corsa. In around a year and half. That's a lot, and too much for me. While my passion for these seasons allowed me to convert, convert and convert, I've reached the end of my own request list and kinda reached burnout state. And my relationship with Assetto Corsa is at an all time low with all the ******** I had to put up with and its shenigans that made modding annoying. While this is mostly caused by the fact that I used a low spec laptop (4th gen i7 processor, powered by intel hd graphics 4400.....) that was more of a windows 8 tablet rather than anything, Assetto didn't help on his side either.

View attachment 1318484

And I can't even enjoy what I'm doing which is the most frustrating part. I discover how my cars look through screenshots from other people driving my cars and onboard lap video they do. Seeing people praising your work, thanking you, it gives the same frustration as seeing the neighboor kid licking his lollipop while you're too poor to afford tasting the taste.

View attachment 1318485

So after these are done, I'll just retire from being a full time modder. I'll just be available to help others in their own projects like I'm doing with TheRaceProject for his 2006 remaster.


I'll also take this occasion to post the conversion guide I wrote last year, where I compiled all the knowledge I gathered while learning how to mod so that 1 I don't forget how to do stuff when I do a break of 2 month. 2 Anyone can gather the courage of doing the first step to enter the modding scene. Usual modding guides you can find are kinda raw and aimed at people who knows their stuff, this one was made so that a total beginner can convert his first F1 car from start to finish.

I may retire, but that doesn't mean that those seasons will be forever abandoned. Just need that someone (like me for 2008,10,11) to take the step and do the job.

How to convert a car - Assetto Corsa Conversion (gitbook.io)
If these really are going to be your last mods, thank you so much for all your amazing work these past couple of years. Your contributions to this community have been truly invaluable.
 
View attachment 1318753
I don't think it is just the lfm thing, seems to also be a case of people making "fixes" to work and republishing them as their own (like EASY was doing with some tracks from various authors)

from the RD Goodwood circuit page
View attachment 1318754
... That's it ?

"If some people don't change I will deny everything for everyone else". Basically.
Mmkay. A teeny tiny bit childish, if i'm asked.

Yes, the "good old days" are over. Nowadays "ThE cOmMunITy" make patreon paywalls for conversions, steal content from one to resell encrypted to another, want to charge people for a filter, etc... Because of many reasons, unicorns don't run free anymore on the modding world. Sorry if it hurts, but wanting that to change in favor of himself is childish behaviour.

If you want it to "change", don't ask them : show them. With an open mind and an open heart. And if you're simply tired of hoping for a change, do something else that makes you happy.
Anyway. Bye John, bye Lilsky, it was a great pleasure, so long, and thanks for all the fi... tracks. I hope you the best in the future ! :cheers:
 
... That's it ?

"If some people don't change I will deny everything for everyone else". Basically.
Mmkay. A teeny tiny bit childish, if i'm asked.

Yes, the "good old days" are over. Nowadays "ThE cOmMunITy" make patreon paywalls for conversions, steal content from one to resell encrypted to another, want to charge people for a filter, etc... Because of many reasons, unicorns don't run free anymore on the modding world. Sorry if it hurts, but wanting that to change in favor of himself is childish behaviour.

If you want it to "change", don't ask them : show them. With an open mind and an open heart. And if you're simply tired of hoping for a change, do something else that makes you happy.
Anyway. Bye John, bye Lilsky, it was a great pleasure, so long, and thanks for all the fi... tracks. I hope you the best in the future ! :cheers:
People don't change by asking them. Or saying please. It doesn't work it never does.
 
Re Varano, downloaded the track, took a visit (very briefly) and planted some trees...anyone interested?
View attachment 1318738
1705104401298.png


So here is the treefx file for Varano. It´s my first approach in creating such an extension, so be gentle if you find some bugs or anomalities. I would call it a v0.5.

Put the extension folder into the Varano folder and overwrite it - it´s based on @slider666 ´s latest extension so it should be up-to-date.


Feedback welcome!
 
Last edited:
View attachment 1318753
I don't think it is just the lfm thing, seems to also be a case of people making "fixes" to work and republishing them as their own (like EASY was doing with some tracks from various authors)

from the RD Goodwood circuit page
View attachment 1318754
Ah, this is much more complicated then. I was under the impression that lowlife modders were changing the grass or something and re-distributing this under their own name, with no credit to the original authors whatsoever.

That's clearly not the case. John (and mantasisg, who I've just learned is part of this mess from this post) are shutting down attempts by seemingly non-nefarious community members to update their aging mods.

I can't imagine being approached with a reasonable update for a long-dead project and saying "absolutely not, get bent", especially since it looks like the updates would have been done for free - but this seems to be what's happening here. Not to mention mantasisg's imploring of those in the conversation to switch to RF2 (advanced physics, blah blah blah, never mind the myriad issues), only for that to backfire not long after.

Qualifier: of course, if the update flat-out sucks, is a stupid idea, goes against the original vision of the track (what if Mosport had a loop-de-loop on the back straight!!?!!??) or they stand to make money off it, I completely agree with a vociferous rejection.

Ultimately, it's the creator's wishes, and it's the right thing to respect their "no" - even if that answer is certainly isolationist, and holds back further evolutions of the track. Though it absolutely stuns me that they were completely blind to this eventuality on an open, constantly evolving modding platform. Very short-sighted - of course this was going to happen, and will happen again if AC2 is a similar platform.

I suppose my position, then, is to roll your eyes, shake your head, respect their wishes, and start a new LiDAR/Laser Scan Goodwood/Mosport/Road America yourself. It's been done before, it can be done again. It sucks that all that work goes to waste, as it would save a tremendous amount of time, but it's their work, and their choice. Sort of a "Christ, that sucks, but that's the way life is in a just world" opinion. Make a better one yourself, don't steal assets, and with yourself in charge, be open to suggestions/edits/updates from the community - whether you are doing it yourself, or it's years down the road and other community modders do it on their own time. Perhaps this will be me someday, as after making a few AI Lines (more to come than just Washington, btw) I've now begun to futz around with the editor myself.

I hope that the tracks are hosted anonymously in the future, as I can't agree with pulling these tracks wholesale from public consumption because of spats with non-nefarious modders who wish to better your work. At least these guys are not Take Two or another megacorp, as if there was DRM on these tracks, they would be gone forever, for everyone. Lol.

My last two cents on this topic.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 1318777

So here is the treefx file for Varano. It´s my first approach in creating such an extension, so be gentle if you find some bugs or anomalities. I would call it a v0.5.

Put the extension folder into the Varano folder and overwrite it - it´s based on @slider666 ´s latest extension so it should be up-to-date.


Feedback welcome!
Not your fault that it really hurts performance (about 40 fps less on my system), because treeFX isn't worth using in its present state.
But where @slider666 fixed the bad looking mountains with his latest config, they are now bad again.
 
X90
That's clearly not the case. John (and mantasisg, who I've just learned is part of this mess from this post) are shutting down attempts by seemingly non-nefarious community members to update their aging mods.
Oops. That sounds like what I do. I never realized it was looked down upon so harshly. Maybe out of respect I should take down my Goodwood mod and a couple of other ones.
 
Thank you 😀

As for the teams I took this site as a reference but it does not carry information on the chassis. For now I think the right thing is to take the 4.3m one as a base and add the various details taken from the various chassis. In reality, this could even get interesting: once I have finished the 3D part, I could also create two separate versions to have both the small and large chassis.

PS: Are the side lights all the same color?
View attachment 1318659

Yes it is a great site for reference but you are right that it does not track the chassis number change I mentioned.
Making the two versions to cover from 2001 would complete your project and the base gtr2 skins can be converted with some of the good work you have done.

All three position lights the same colour, yellow or gold for GT/GT2.
GTS/GT1 is light green
LMP2 is light blue
LMP1 is red

Many thanks for your help. I will check it all out.
You may be able to identify which car is the culprit for holding up the grid. Further to what Mikeonthemic said and lower the first gear ratio, increasing the torque values in power.lut under 2000 rpm will also help.
It may seem the values are unrealistic but as the AI starts moving the rpm drops under 1000 so they need low rpm torque to get moving quickly.
 
Oops. That sounds like what I do. I never realized it was looked down upon so harshly. Maybe out of respect I should take down my Goodwood mod and a couple of other ones.
Yeah, I absolutely love your tweaks, man. Grab every one.

I don't know if you'd made any changes or not to any of their tracks, but I guess I'd consider pulling them down.

Unfortunately, changing grass hues and textures is exactly the type of thing they're getting mad about. That and adding RainFX/redoing trees/other CSP things, from my understanding.
 
X90
Unfortunately, changing grass hues and textures is exactly the type of thing they're getting mad about. That and adding RainFX/redoing trees/other CSP things, from my understanding.
I can understand this up to a point. I can respect the fact that they spend days upon days, months upon months, years upon years building and creating their tracks and have a specific vision for their tracks. What I can't understand that they don't understand (especially for older tracks made before CSP was even a thing or tracks made for the base game) is that most of the time that vision is completely lost because of changes in the game engine that CSP\Sol\Pure make.

A quick example is Fat-Alfie's Battenbergring. And please don't take any of this as a knock against Fat-Alfie because I know he's not involved in any of this. I just happened to have comparison shots of this track handy so it was easy to use it as an example instead of having to make screenshots of one of the track's in question, like Goodwood. The same thing applies to that track as well.

Under the base game, the track looks incredible:
base.jpg


But with CSP\Sol\Pure, the track looks hideous. The colors are all wrong, the shadowing is terrible. It looks nothing like he intended:
csp.jpg


But with a few tweaks, at least it can get closer to his intended look even if it's not an exact match:
new.jpg


And this is where I don't get their frustration. What is wrong with the end user wanting the track to look the best it can look. And what is wrong with wanting to drive the track in the rain or at night or with any of the other available CSP features. And why do they look at someone creating a track skin or adding a CSP feature as some kind of insult to their work. If it was me, i'd take it as sort of a compliment. If someone is willing to spend months (which I have done) on a mod of a track, that must mean they really like the track.

I guess having never actually created something from scratch my perspective is skewed, but i'd like to think I would have the same opinion even if I had. I just know that with all the different variables in this game (ppfilters, personal tastes, Sol vs. Pure vs. stock weather, CSP vs. base game, etc.), they have to understand that what they see is not what everyone else sees and they should be a little more open to someone creating an alternative look that might fit someone else's eyes better. As long as that person is not profiting from it or taking credit for the track itself, I just don't understand the problem.
 
Last edited:
Sharing a mod? Host it on GTPlanet Downloads. Free, public hosting for files up to 10GB in size.
Back