So can one of you NASCAR experts explain what happened to JPM? He went from 2nd to 26th in about 2 racing laps. Is it because he has no friends? Is he behaving in a way that makes people not want to draft with him? Is it because his head got broken? What is it?

Last edited by J.B., Wed 20 Feb 2008, 04:42.

I once drove GT4 and Enthusia back to back on the same track with a DFP. I thought GT4 felt more natural. Don't know Forza.

Can he do 13 laps on fuel?

EDIT: lol, doesn't even matter. JPM is never going to win when you need cooperation with other drivers to stay at the front.

Nice move JPM.

Quote from Poffter :

LFS does work with Vista right? Vista is a heavily evolved XP, not totally new. Does share very many basic files, like KERNEL32.dll.

It's not that simple. You make it sound like any Windows software needs to run flawlessly on any Windows version that has the same Kernel32.dll.

There are many other components to an OS that differ from version to version. LFS did need some changes before it worked properly on Vista.

LFS officially supports XP and Vista, not kernel32 or XP fundamentals.

It's not up to you to decide which OS LFS devs should support.

So bottom line is: learn some manners when making a request.

Quote from simon2 :

Don't you get it

No. Please elaborate the point you are trying to make.

Quote from Poffter :

It shouldn't be a problem to use LFS but it is, and I really wonder how it could be.

Huh? WXPF doesn't even have joystick support according to Wikipedia. Surely this is a case of you trying to run LFS on an unsupported OS rather than some kind of LFS problem?

I mean maybe you could request WXPF support from the devs but I don't understand how you are trying to spin this into an "LFS is poorly coded" issue.

With the new ati drivers the problem of black screen seem to have gone away. But i am not sure it are the drivers or just luck.

The only way to deal with this kind of problem is to find out why it's happening and then address the causes. I don't believe that these guys are born mass murderers. It's just hopeless depression mixed with a lot of anger. For some reason there are a lot of these guys in modern society.

Skin stealing?

You make something nice for everyone to see and is shared for everyone freely to use, yet you want to tell someone else not to use it.

I don' t want you to ever use linux. Sounds stupid? I think so

Quote from Niels Heusinkveld :

Todds physics are slowly growing; first RC cars, now karts.. 2050 will be a good year!

I once saw a youtube vid of one of these beasts getting some oversteer in the mud but I can't find it anymore.

Quote from jtw62074 :

In modder speak, I "do the physics."

So your physics engine is really ISI with some ini tweaks?

Quote from octamed :

the latest AutoSimSport pdf mag has them. www.autosimsport.net

Thx.

Best looking grass ever. Chance to have a go at Todd's tyre model. I excite!

RSC has been down for hours. Can someone post the screenshots?

Quote from gezmoor :

hmm ok. Well it seems we haven't reached a conclusion.

Just to clarify however, I'm refering to the situation where the rpms aren't so low as to cause the engine to stall. eg. my car at 60mph in 6th gear is revving at 2k rpm. It's this kind of scenario I'm refering to. People are saying that the car shouldn't be driven at, (and certainly not accelerated from), those kinds of rpms in high gears as it's bad for the clutch. They argue that you should be in 3rd or 4th gear. I'm thinking it doesn't add up. Remember we're talking about clutch damage/wear not ideal acceleration.

Yes, if you spend most of your normal driving in high gears you will indeed be putting more torque on your clutch. This has nothing to do with "low end torque" or something like that, the reason is described by wolfracer.

The question is just how much this matters. I maintain that unless the clutch is already worn out by excessive slipping it doesn't matter at all.

Quote from Bob Smith :

I can imagine the engine being less efficient at such low revs...

That is what you might think just based on the awful noise coming from a low revving engine. But in fact this is exactly how you drive for max efficiency. The reason is that the lower the revs the more throttle you will need to get the same power. And the more throttle you use the more efficient the whole combustion process is. That's actually the reason small engines are more efficient than big engines: during normal driving the smaller engine spends it's time much closer to full throttle than the big engine.

What I like to do, apart from judging by feel, is watching the cars from the outside. If you've spent countless hours of your life watching motorsports of all forms, at the track and on TV, then you get a pretty good sense of whether car behavior looks real or not. For example GT4 just looks dead while ISI looks very strange and snappy whenever a car gets into oversteer. LFS is still the only one where you can really see the car squirming for grip.

Wolfracer, you're right, to drive at a constant velocity or constant acceleration requires less torque from the engine the lower the gear is. But the thing is that this is negligible in terms of clutch wear. I think tristan was the first to point out that clutch wear is caused by clutch slipping (some racing clutches can only deal with a handful of starts but can be driven hard all day long). So you may be putting a high load on the clutch if you are in such a high gear that you need to put on throttle to stop the engine from stalling.

Low rpm torque as a characteristic of turbo engines is irrelevant here as this low end torque is only the max torque at a given rpm. The real torque is defined by the position of the driver's right foot.

Apart from that I have to say there is quite some confusion in this thread. There can't be different amounts of torque on either side of the clutch unless it's slipping. Check out Free Body Diagrams, equilibrium of forces and Newton's third law.

Last edited by J.B., Wed 13 Feb 2008, 08:49.

Quote from samjh :

It's perfectly possible to floor the throttle mid-corner in the BF1. You just have to set your TC to the appropriate setting (like in real F1 cars), around 2-3%.

Mind you, real F1 drivers usually set TC to more than 4% allowed slip. It is not uncommon to see F1 drivers spinning it despite TC. Unlike us mere mortals, they know how to take advantage of their cars' TC, while most LFS players probably just slam the throttle and hope for the best.

The TC in LFS is very good, although I certainly can't comment on how good it is compared to real F1 cars.

The tc of lfs is very simple, it just limits slip, at whatever speed the car is going and what the driver is doing. Very much like the first generations of traction control over 15 years ago. TC-systems are a lot better nowadays... Thats why it is good news they are banned from F1. They cost too much money, not the simple one like lfs or road going cars(1500 dollars max to install) but in order of 1000000+ dollars of development on top f1 teams each year excusive production costs. I assume such system will do a bit more then just limit slip according to a very strict setting.

Anyway, i hope someday tc will be banned from lfs too, but not before the tyre-heat problem is fixed.

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

Right tristan you seem to think that people have to have driven a F1 car in real life to be fast in them on a simulator which no-one i know who is fast has!

And just for you and ajp i spent an hour hotlapping before and managed to get a WR on keyboard beating the previous 1 by over a tenth with a setup that wasn't made for there. Just to show you it has nothing to do with the keyboard or me, still think im all over the place and slow ajp?.

The setup i was using for blackwood was a WR setup FOR patch Y which is the kind of setups i used to run with on patch X (WR setups).

Im ill with this thread it won't end.

It will get very difficult if scawen decides to turn of keyboard stabalizing

In the old days, digital was the only available input for home sim racers. It is very easy compared to analogue.

"n contrast a modern F1 car isn't setup or designed to be controlled with a lead weight on the throttle pedal,"

What??? F1 drivers are flooring it on twisty sections of the track. The tc handles it all! The tc is very unlike the one of lfs. On lfs it is nearly useless in midconers where real drivers can floor it. Because, the tc will handle everyting. However, most of us will still not be able to control such a car, because most of us are not strong enough to cope with the g-forces and/or get scared from the speed of an f1 car

Don' t try this in lfs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewTyxOaVpOc

Complte lap of F1 tc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... 62rnU&feature=related

Only reason to stay off the pedal is the understeer, because the tc won't allow any sliding of the rear, keeping the car in control, making it possible to use unstable setups and still have understeer.


altough i must add, the f1 tc feels a bit better, but still not as good as it was with real cars. But i never driven a real one

Last edited by Bluebird B B, Mon 11 Feb 2008, 21:30.

Reuploaded due to request: Young Tiff in Group C Porsche at a test day at Silverstone.

http://rapidshare.com/files/90 ... Silverstone_Test.avi.html

Quote from Bawbag :

Yea I mean Kovasomethinsomethin, his Formula Renault car (Which he still owns) stays at the Fortec warehouse and I assume he made many friends while racing for them in 2002, I guess he went back to see his old buddys who helped get him to where he is today and saw this simulator....

Visiting friends eh? Sounds more like 'helping' Renault make a better simulator. New spy case anyone?

I assume Heikki means Mr Kovalainen? I see he was with Fortec in 2002 but what got him to drive the FO8 years later?

I just had a situation where utorrent was using 400 MB of physical RAM but only showing as 40 MB in both "VM Size" and "Mem Usage". So it looks like checking VM Size isn't a solution for detecting all forms of buggy crapware either.