You know, I did get that impression 
Sam
Sam
Spot on, [RF]-art555
To d3boy2002 - why do you want the cars to be easier to stall? We've discussed how cars behave in real life compared to those in LFS, and nobody's come up with real glaring issues in LFS's stall modelling, so, are you pulling from real life experience, or just what you imagine things should be like?
Sam
To d3boy2002 - why do you want the cars to be easier to stall? We've discussed how cars behave in real life compared to those in LFS, and nobody's come up with real glaring issues in LFS's stall modelling, so, are you pulling from real life experience, or just what you imagine things should be like?
Sam
The more destroyed the clutch is, of course, the easier that would be - but the point I was making was that really, you have to be pretty negligent to get a modern car to stall, even when you ignore the throttle pedal completely. Sidestepping the clutch always works, though 
For the record, this is also quite good
Sam
For the record, this is also quite good
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
Ohh, I like it, I like it a lot 
Ten points
Sam
Ten points
Sam
Do you drive a manual car in real life?
Seeing as we're racing these cars, they're always going to be warm if not hot, and so the starter-motor times seem fairly realistic. The age of the car doesn't seem too relevant because, again, as we're racing them, I think we'd make sure they had decent starter-motors in them for "heat of the moment" stuff if necessary. Apart from anything else, you might well have a starter button as we do in LFS anyway.
Stalling road cars is bloody difficult these days. The ECUs do their absolute best in modern cars to stop it happening - for example, I was moving a 2006 diesel Mondeo around, and absent-mindedly put it into what would be reverse in my five-speed Mondeo. Letting out the clutch quite quickly and without adding throttle, as I would normally for reverse, a very low-ratio gear.. I was surprised and a little impressed that the car didn't stall, but in fact moved forward quite easily in sixth gear from standstill. Good luck doing that in LFS..
Sam
Seeing as we're racing these cars, they're always going to be warm if not hot, and so the starter-motor times seem fairly realistic. The age of the car doesn't seem too relevant because, again, as we're racing them, I think we'd make sure they had decent starter-motors in them for "heat of the moment" stuff if necessary. Apart from anything else, you might well have a starter button as we do in LFS anyway.
Stalling road cars is bloody difficult these days. The ECUs do their absolute best in modern cars to stop it happening - for example, I was moving a 2006 diesel Mondeo around, and absent-mindedly put it into what would be reverse in my five-speed Mondeo. Letting out the clutch quite quickly and without adding throttle, as I would normally for reverse, a very low-ratio gear.. I was surprised and a little impressed that the car didn't stall, but in fact moved forward quite easily in sixth gear from standstill. Good luck doing that in LFS..
Sam
I did consider that, but as all the customised .eng files - not just the standard, unmodified ones - are around that size, they're clearly not saved as slider values. Perhaps they could be at some point in the future, but the bandwidth would be a valid issue if the .eng files we currently have were used.
Sam
Sam
Each .eng file is around 200-300KB, and I was referring to these having to be stored and distributed.
Sam
Quite apart from the unacceptably huge scope for idiocy, I'd be concerned about the LFSW bandwidth too, something that hasn't been mentioned.
Definitely not a viable one, this.
Sam
Definitely not a viable one, this.
Sam
In my opinion, we already have three 'decent' GTR cars. But there you go, such is life, some people find it annoying that we don't have motorbikes or police cars in LFS but that doesn't mean they're high on the to-do list either.
Now you know the reasoning behind the XR GTR being the way it is, I'm sure it'll be easier to bear
Sam
Now you know the reasoning behind the XR GTR being the way it is, I'm sure it'll be easier to bear
Sam
As the whole point (I believe) of the GTR-class cars is modifying the road cars, and therefore the engines they already had - simulating homologation, I presume - no, you're probably not going to get a three-litre V6 in the XR GTR.
The turbo modelling is a known and very well documented issue, and one which will eventually be improved. This is by no means the first thread on the topic, and won't be the last either, unfortunately - searching is the way forward.
For the record, maximum boost in the XR Turbo can be attained at 4500rpm.
Sam
The turbo modelling is a known and very well documented issue, and one which will eventually be improved. This is by no means the first thread on the topic, and won't be the last either, unfortunately - searching is the way forward.
For the record, maximum boost in the XR Turbo can be attained at 4500rpm.
Sam
Making it optional gets my vote, nice one Sarge.
Sam
Sam
Ahh, chillax, I was only messing around - if you catch me when I'm very drunk and getting all "you're my best friend ever", I might even admit that I have respect for the incredible car control that some drifters can show. I, for one, probably couldn't do it.
This is not quotable.
Sam
This is not quotable.
Sam
Well, let's try and get some sort of moral out of the story - happy now?
Sam
Sam
World's greatest aerodynamic theorist in the making here
Sam
Sam
I've always been under the impression - reinforced by the naming rules of manufacturers - that a cabriolet has a folding cloth roof, whether powered or unpowered, and a coupé cabriolet has a folding metal/hard roof, always powered in my knowledge but not necessarily for the name. If someone would like to design a manually operated folding metal roof
"Convertible" is a blanket term for all cars on which the roof can be raised, lowered, or removed (partially or fully); whether manually or automatically. This comes from the ability to "convert" the car from one with a roof to one without a roof, or with a modified roof (for example a T-top).
As I understand it, that is.
Putting more of them in LFS? Only if it's coincidental, like the RAC. Going out of one's way simply to have a type of car which is mostly avoided in racing for safety reasons - the FiA have already laid out guidelines for LMP-class cars to be of closed-cockpit designs, by a year which escapes me at the moment - seems a bit pointless.
For the record, I don't think the UF1000 counts as a convertible, because the only way to remove its roof is to cut it off and replace the rear window with a rollbar... Our option in the pit menu to have the roof on or off doesn't really reflect the speed or ease with which such an operation could be done on the car in reality, it's hardly "convertible" just because we have the option to cut its roof off
Sam
"Convertible" is a blanket term for all cars on which the roof can be raised, lowered, or removed (partially or fully); whether manually or automatically. This comes from the ability to "convert" the car from one with a roof to one without a roof, or with a modified roof (for example a T-top).
As I understand it, that is.
Putting more of them in LFS? Only if it's coincidental, like the RAC. Going out of one's way simply to have a type of car which is mostly avoided in racing for safety reasons - the FiA have already laid out guidelines for LMP-class cars to be of closed-cockpit designs, by a year which escapes me at the moment - seems a bit pointless.
For the record, I don't think the UF1000 counts as a convertible, because the only way to remove its roof is to cut it off and replace the rear window with a rollbar... Our option in the pit menu to have the roof on or off doesn't really reflect the speed or ease with which such an operation could be done on the car in reality, it's hardly "convertible" just because we have the option to cut its roof off
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
It seems I'm having to say - far too often - that LFS is not a game. It is a simulator. Therefore no issues whatsoever with its realism can be dismissed because "it's not real", as the aim of LFS is to be as true to life as is possible. That's the only way in which it can achieve its aim of being a replacement for real racing for those who cannot afford or are not physically able to race in real life.
So please don't sit around saying "it doesn't matter because it's only a game".
Sam
So please don't sit around saying "it doesn't matter because it's only a game".
Sam
I did not suggest censoring posts, and will never do so - I merely stated a my belief that making such comments, particularly when they are wholly unnecessary, is unwise. Mostly because, as you say in a rather more derogatory way, the general LFS population fully supports the developing team.
If you had made such a comment about anybody, whatever position they held, when you had no idea about what work they were doing, my response would be exactly the same. Be they an employee of EA working on NFS, or in this case Eric on LFS, I don't think you're really in the right place to make an informed, accurate comment on their working attitude and relative worth.
That's all.
Sam
If you had made such a comment about anybody, whatever position they held, when you had no idea about what work they were doing, my response would be exactly the same. Be they an employee of EA working on NFS, or in this case Eric on LFS, I don't think you're really in the right place to make an informed, accurate comment on their working attitude and relative worth.
That's all.
Sam
Whilst I'm sure that one of the chief developers of the most dedicated, accurate, and commited racing simulator in the world would be very pleased to hear that you think he isn't worth having on the team, personally, I don't believe you should share such an opinion in a public forum.
Sam
Sam
The reason we have comparatively few tracks with a large number of layouts is because it takes a very long time to create a whole new environment, a whole new scenery set, and a whole new place for the physics engine to work in. By contrast, it takes far less time and effort to make variations on the same track in the same place, and so the developers have given us a lot of layout options on the tracks we have to help add variety without massively increasing workload.
Sam
Sam
+1 for option - as Andriod says, compressing can take up valuable CPU time, as I understand it. So you might want to leave them as .BMPs when you're racing, but I agree that .PNG is by far and away the best option most of the time.
Sam
Sam
None of my setups use a locked differential, because I aim for maximum realism. Which is also why I only use a force feedback 'wheel when using my S2 licence. I treat LFS as an alternative to real-life racing, whilst my budget does not permit real-life racing, as well as a training aid.
How many experienced, high-level LFS users agree that it is a 'game' as opposed to a simulator? Not sure why I'm asking, really, because I know the answer.
What I'm thinking, in the easiest, non-technical way, is that you don't understand the objective of the LFS developers and you do not understand the purpose of LFS. There you go.
Sam
How many experienced, high-level LFS users agree that it is a 'game' as opposed to a simulator? Not sure why I'm asking, really, because I know the answer.
What I'm thinking, in the easiest, non-technical way, is that you don't understand the objective of the LFS developers and you do not understand the purpose of LFS. There you go.
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
You're not going to get far on these forums - or indeed in LFS - if you call this a 'game'. It is not. LFS is a racing simulator, and there is a world of difference.
The fact that "ROAD_SUPER" tyres are grippier than "ROAD_NORMAL" is perfectly reasonable - because we can assume that the "SUPER" tyres are softer-compound. Thus they would be faster, and that's why they're more commonly used. This, though, is something that's not defined, we're not given enough detail to actually know the mechanical difference. So we can't argue.
With the diffs, on the other hand, we know exactly what the setting change is doing, and therefore we know when it's inaccurate. Thus, we know when we're exploiting a physics issue, and because this is a simulator and not a game, we use it realistically rather than just to be as fast as we possibly can on a temporarily flawed part of the physics engine.
Sam
The fact that "ROAD_SUPER" tyres are grippier than "ROAD_NORMAL" is perfectly reasonable - because we can assume that the "SUPER" tyres are softer-compound. Thus they would be faster, and that's why they're more commonly used. This, though, is something that's not defined, we're not given enough detail to actually know the mechanical difference. So we can't argue.
With the diffs, on the other hand, we know exactly what the setting change is doing, and therefore we know when it's inaccurate. Thus, we know when we're exploiting a physics issue, and because this is a simulator and not a game, we use it realistically rather than just to be as fast as we possibly can on a temporarily flawed part of the physics engine.
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
Do you understand the meaning of 'abusing an exploit'?
If, in a simulator (like LFS), a particular setting causes an unrealistically faster result (like the locked diff does), then it is inaccurate. That setting is an exploit of the physics engine. If you choose to use that setting, you're exploiting the physics engine to produce unrealistic results in the aim of being faster.
If you wanted to do that, you could go on GT4 and get a Tommykaira to do 382mph and say it's fine. That's an extreme example, but the idea is the same.
Sam
If, in a simulator (like LFS), a particular setting causes an unrealistically faster result (like the locked diff does), then it is inaccurate. That setting is an exploit of the physics engine. If you choose to use that setting, you're exploiting the physics engine to produce unrealistic results in the aim of being faster.
If you wanted to do that, you could go on GT4 and get a Tommykaira to do 382mph and say it's fine. That's an extreme example, but the idea is the same.
Sam
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG