thanks

how can i crate a server?

Quote from amp88 :

I believe every car I've driven in the UK has had dual markings. They're very common in some parts of Europe. LFS is a mainly British based game, so having dual markings would probably be more realistic.

The UK wants to be part of the eu, but with some things UK stays apart of Europe, like left-side driving, strange units and still not using the euro
There is nothing wrong with that, but the UK is not a very good example how things are in the rest of the EU.

I just don't think dual markings should be a priority.

Quote from scania :

ya, I can contral F1 with no TC even I drive by keybroad & mouse (steer>mouse Gas>Keybroad)

:clapclap::wow::bowdown:
No further comment needed

Quote from tristancliffe :

Why?

What happens when planes bank 90°? Do they fall out of the sky too?

Actually they do drop in altitude and need to point the aircraft slightly upwards to prevent falling out of the sky. At very huge altitudes, this isn't an issue for modern fighters since they can so easily climb back to the orginal altitude. But at low-level flying, they have indeed to be very carefull when turning the plane on its side. Just as the nose really needs to be pointed upwards to fly level when flying upside down.

I don't know about the F-22 and jsf, it is possible the onboard-computer will automaticly do this compensations for the pilot when flying close to the ground. But somehow i think even that would be dangerous because the computer may start doing something else then the pilots wants to do which usually results into kissing the ground. Any fighter pilots here on the forum?


anyway, i think we all agree a car wont slide down on 90 degree banking in a corner as long the car is moving forward fast enough

Quote from amp88 :

It's more realistic. Also, the speed limits for the pits are all displayed in km/h IIRC even if you use mph as your main unit of speed. I think every car I've driven in the UK has had these dual markings, but I can't say for certain.

it's got to be way, way down the list of things to do though, IMO.

Its really the point of view and where you live.

In Europe, only metric units are used. Cars with dual speedometers are very very rare. Usually only USA imports have a dual speedometer. From "our" point of view, dual meters are unrealistic since all cars are European style in lfs. If a USA-style car would be added, that one maybe should have a dual speedo.

However, i think there are more important things than the speedo to be improved or added in lfs

YES That would be great , but probably already suggested before?

BF1 is so much more fun without TC and really not that hard. About 50% of time i drive online with bf1 one is with tc of against others with tc on.

Nice one! Dis guy also rocks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIAHrLHJqq4&fmt=22

FO8 here;
bf1 has TC so its no fun at all unless it becomes possible to disallow it from serverside.

The FOX is too underpowered to be real fun. Lots of grip yet it feels sometimes slower then the fbm.

Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

You mean hydrogen powered car years, because electric cars are useless and totally unsustainable in the long term, they are nothing more than a PR stunt. I already suggested they use hydrogen powered F1 cars, because the only emissions would be water, so the cars would wet the track as they race to make it more exciting.

You shouldn't rely on Top Gear for technical information. Hint: there is no usable Hydrogen in nature. We have to make it.

Motor Racing will die once they can no longer use petrol engines. Anyone who's seen a diesel Audi on track will know why.

And if you want to know what an electric F1 might look like, start by calculating the size of the battery pack that can deliver 800 bhp for at lwast half an hour. KERS is 30 kg for 80 bhp for 6 seconds.

Quote from gezmoor :

He was probably the easiest option, and close enough to the centre of the whole controversy

That's because he is the guy who f***ed up. Hamilton also played a part in the cheat attempt but I don't think anyone else did.

Calling him a scapegoat would mean that he is being singled out alone when in fact a larger group of people had conspired to cheat by lying to the stewards. There is no proof or indication of this. Haug himself said that Lewis had been instructed to let Trulli pass in the post race interviews.

The only question left is who's idea it was, Hamilton's or Ryan's. Doubt we'll ever find out though.

Quote from J.B. :

I just wonder wth Whitmarsh is on about?

Ok, I've found the answer for this. His comments were made before the FIA decision was released. In fact McLaren haven't reacted in any way since the FIA release...

So it looks like there's only two possibilities. Either they have to admit to lying or they need to pursue legal action. Or they can of course refuse to comment at all.

Last edited by J.B., Thu 2 Apr 2009, 21:04.

Quote from SamH :

I don't think that would help since it seems the FIA is using what WASN'T said as the basis for the penalty. This being distinct from what they're directly implying was a "lie". In my opinion, it was an error of omission for good reason - the presumption that the stewards would refer to the radio traffic, since this would normally be pivotal in determining wrongdoing. Unfortunately I'm obviously demanding more of the stewards than they're capable of - to do their jobs properly.

That was my first impression also. But the official wording is

Quote from FIA :

During the hearing, held approximately one hour after the end of the race, the Stewards and the Race Director questioned Lewis Hamilton and his Team Manager David Ryan specifically about whether there had been an instruction given to Hamilton to allow Trulli to overtake. Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given. The Race Director specifically asked Hamilton whether he had consciously allowed Trulli to overtake. Hamilton insisted that he had not done so.

Even the FIA can't make that up. But of course they still look like amateurs. With today's technology they shouldn't have to rely on what McLaren have to say.

Quote from SamH :

"failure to mention, when questioned, something that WE might rely on in court"

But that's Whitmarsh's version, not what the official FIA wording says. See amp88's link.

Quote from amp88 :

Pretty damning evidence which has already been posted in the Malaysian thread.

Thx, I hadn't seen the full wording. Of course the situation would still be clearer if the was an actual transcript of the Melbourne hearing available, but I guess even the FIA wouldn't make this stuff up completely. I just wonder wth Whitmarsh is on about?

Last edited by J.B., Thu 2 Apr 2009, 17:49.

What isn't clear is that FIA and Whitmarsh are still saying two different things and no transcript has been released to prove either one or the other.

FIA says that they asked Hamilton after the race if he had been instructed to let Trulli pass and he said no. Whitmarsch says that all that happened was that they didn't tell the FIA about the instruction because they thought they were aware of the radio conversation anyway.

Two different things. Either Hamilton lied and Whitmarsh is still lying, or FIA is lying.

I'm still not quite clear on the situation. Somebody is still lying.

Quote from FIA :

"Both the driver [Hamilton] and the team manager stated that no such instruction had been given."

vs

Quote from Martin Whitmarsh :

What they believe is that... the information about that radio conversation with the team was withheld, and that is what they believe was misleading.

and

Quote from Trulli :

And he was slowing down more and more, so I overtook him at 80km/h. So we were basically stopped.

vs

Quote from Martin Whitmarsh :

It was difficult conditions but there was no evidence from the data that Lewis did anything that induced Trulli to go past.

Does look like Mclaren are the bad boys here though.

Another important question is wtf don't the stewards have onboards, radio and data recordings when they look into these situations?

Last edited by J.B., Thu 2 Apr 2009, 17:12.

Quote from Shotglass :

lifepos actually which barely contain any lithium and are fairly safe to use

Just had a quick look at the Wikipedia article. It says energy per mass is lower than with normal Li-ion cells. So what might the advantages be for F1? Safety? Do you know if they are all using this type of battery?

Ah, you already got it... I just did the calculation myself and was about to show you how. Well glad you fixed it anyway.

How can we tell if you made a mistake if you don't tell us what you did?

Looks like those that are using KERS are using Ion Lithium batteries (same stuff that mobile phones, laptops and the Tesla Roadster use) while Williams was the only team to try and get a mechanical energy storage to work (less weight than batteries) but failed. Bosch seems to have a mechanical system ready but AFAICT nobody bought it...

Two other concepts that had been thought of but it looks like nobody tried are super capacitors and fluid pressure storage.

Last edited by J.B., Fri 27 Mar 2009, 08:14.

Quote from PaulC2K :

oh, and they mentioned in the BBC commentry that the issue of the lack of visable indication had been brought up to the FIA (or whoever it would be) to show who was using it and who wasnt...

Good to hear that at least some people in F1 are finally waking up... Published car weight after Quali is another long overdue step that they want to do for the first time tomorrow.

Of course that's still a far cry from Nascar where they can screen overlay multiple moving cars with live telemetry and have onboard views of all incidents from all involved cars immediately after the incident, not months later on the season review DVD, and played in real time, not pointless slo mo.

I could go on but at least F1 is beginning to respect their viewers a little bit.

So where's the information on who's using KERS, what kind of system they're using and how to tell when it's on? I checked autosport.com and formula1.com.

Or are they seriously arrogant and clueless enough to make this a top secret not for spectators deal? Not that I'd be surprised...