Understood, thanks for clearing it up

I got to ask one question regarding the concrete objects:

Is it possible to make them procedural/parametric? So the users could select own length/height/possibly radius and other geometric parameters instead of relying on few predetermined sizes and shapes the editor currently offers. Making a long straight eats up so many 16m wall objects and creation of a smooth curve with many short walls also cuts deep into the object count limit. I got into replicating some real life street tracks recently and this became a huge bottleneck in what can be made.

Or would that require complete overhaul of the layout editor system for this kind of object?

Quote from Scawen :

Would the kerb objects like you see at Blackwood do the job?

This would be perfect as concrete-based kerbs are a real headache to get right (mostly due to placement and orientation limitations in the editor).

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Electric vehicles are now technically ready. They are on average faster than ICE cars. They have a 2 or 3 times higher efficiency. Range is now comparable. The only thing is the scalability of production. Thats Why manufacturers are building more factories and increasing supplies.
Where do you see problems here?

I see problems in things you (maybe deliberately) didn't mention. And those you mentioned are skewed anyway.
Do I care about 'faster than ICE' when buying a family car? Not really, Noone does unless they are buying an actual racecar. Faster than ICE is not an argument to buy EV for 'normal people'.
2-3 times more efficient and comparable range - cool, what is the EV efficiency after 7 years of service at temps around 0°C (freezing point of water)? Not that impressive, right? Batteries don't like too cold or too hot environments.
I'm more interested in scalability of usefulness before diving into scalability of production

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Yes, that's how it works. If you need a new car and you see that only electric cars are being sold, then you buy an electric car. I didn't think it needed to be explained.

What argument is this?
And if they ban EVs then you simply ride a horse, right?
I'd prefer to make my own selection instead of being told (and forced to) what they think is right.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

All you're doing here is making an analogy. An analogy can be used if you want to explain something to the interlocutor but not when you want to make a argument. I don't want to attack you, but I don't like analogies and I'll explain why. Analogy is not argument by default. So I don't even have to answer it. Because an analogy is a comparison of two things by one or more properties.
I, too, can compare electric cars with Ford's car revolution for example, when in 20 years America turned into a car country. So what it means? That electric cars same like ICE cars? (But at least this analogy was understandable because we are talking about cars here and there.) Or I can compare a finger and ass. These are 2 different things. They both have skin and have blood in it, and sweat cells for example. Does this mean that a finger and an ass are the same things? No. So what analogy means? Nothing. Anything can be explained by analogy simply by comparing one with the other. It has no argument.

Analogy can be a great argument if you understand the point why the analogy was used (which apparently didn't happen here). In this case, the analogy was used to prove, that setting hard deadlines without having secured the path (technological, infrastructural, social,...) usually does not lead to a success, at least not it that early highly optimistic timeframe. That's why NASA dind't get to Mars by 1980s and that's why I think the car market wil not be fully electric by 2030/2035 and if it does, it will be a disaster.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - that's why we use examples from past, so we don't fail the same way again

But when we are at analogies, I will gladly borrow your Ford's car revolution turning America into a car country in 20 years. When that did happen, did someone ban horses by 1915 and execute remaining horses by 1920? (I'm exaggerating a bit, but maybe that will help you understand my 'argument'). Did the market transfer on its own once people found out the Ford is more practical mean of trasport than a horse? Or did the government force them to use it by 1915? Why can't we make the transition from ICE to EV the same way?

Make a good product and people will be happy to buy and use it, instead of forcing them to use it because you said so

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

The analogy is also bad because it does not get me closer to understanding why you think that electric cars technological readiness not ready or something.

I'll recap some of my concerns:

- Range is not really that much comaparable, esp. with older car and when it's too cold/too hot. EV is a great small city car, but once you need to get across a country, it is a nightmare.
- Accumulators significantly degrade with time and charging cycles, further reducing the range and usefulness. By the time ICE is still perfectly fine, the EV is ready for scrapyard (because buying new EV is more viable than changing the battery in old one).
- Charging rate is not very impressive and the fast charging increases the battery degradation even more.
- EVs on fire are very difficult to be put out, they even tend to reignite hours or even days after.
- The electricity cost in Europe is not very friendly lately, and might get even worse with green agenda shutting down reliable nuclear power plants. This can make EVs very pricey in the future unless you have house with massive solar panels.
- More... (not into writing long essays atm)


Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of EVs (after all I'm the only one in LFS community running a major EV championship) and the day EVs are actually viable I'll be happy to buy one, but that is still a bit too far and the 'mandatory' approach in transition from ICEs to EVs makes me kinda upset about the whole thing.

I'm talking about technological readiness of EVs.
Just because EU and other organisations that are completely out of reality ban ICEs, it won't suddenly make EVs viable option, they'll just ideologically kill the other means of transport. And leaving EVs as the only option won't suddenly make it viable - it will just be the only option. A painful one to take. And all the subsidies, taxes and bans won't change that.

In Apollo era the NASA planned to send human expedition to Mars by 1980s. 40 years later still no footsteps in martian soil. The only difference is in thier case it was a non-binding estimation, not a hard target they'd aim for no matter what the reality is. Guess what, they figured out they need more technological advancement to fulfill that goal and also there are other programs they could/should concentrate on.
Now it is technologically realistic that we can put human on Mars in 2030s; but EVs are still in their "1980s" stage - setting a goal in highly specific timeframe, but only hoping that the technological (and infrastructural) advancement is made within that time instead of being backed up by it already.

LFSW name: michal 1279
In-game name: [MRc] Michal
Full team name: Master Race car
Nation: Czechia

EV is certainly a future of mobility. But there is one important word in that sentence we have to pay attention to - the future, not the presence. Electromobility simply is not ready for the mass use yet. And neither is the infrastructure or the society. As a mechanical enginner I see EVs truly viable in about 50 years from now. That is also the point when the smooth transition from ICE-powered cars should happen.
Unfortunately the green lobby is trying hard to push and mandate the EV while actively disrupting the ICE market. But this will only lead to the destruction of both means of transport as one will be effectively banned (and its supply chains destroyed) while the other will prove unfit at given point in time and we will enter the dark ages of transportation.

47/michal 1279/Michal Málek/Czechia/Master Race car/Fraud Wheeler E2 RX

Quote from shehab277 :

https://youtu.be/LW4EMtpv4uA
is this look RACING simulator for you?

Not at all!

Yes, that's the best possible improvement that can be made in a RACING simulator.

TeamName: FERAT Motors
Number: 47
TeamManager: {michal 1279, Michal Málek}
TeamLeader discord user: [MRc] Michal#0970

Drivers:
- {michal 1279, Michal Málek, Czech Republic}
- {TBA}

Quote from iiiiil :

Mesh explodes in wire mode.
All i did was going to wire mode and click "reload textures". Some times LFSE crashes, some times i get this weird result

Haha, nice find.
I can confirm following your steps this happens to me with any car loaded (even original LFS vehicles).

Hi there,

only noticed this thread just now, I can offer a helping hand in recreating your dream course. I have experience in recreating tracks with very high precision from satellite images, so assuming you have meaningful pictures to work with, it would be quite easy task to do actually

Here's an example of my work:
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thre ... rk-E-Prix-circuit-replica

Let me know if you're interested.

I just want racecars... maybe I'm asking bit too much for a racing simulator, idk...

LFSW name: michal 1279
In-game name: [MRc] Michal
Full team name: Master Race car
Nation: Czech Republic

Quote from BeNoM :

Not sure if it counts, but LFS on the front page of Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/wtw7xu/scented_tree_peripheral_for_racing_games_that/

Damn, this is perfection. So useless yet so immersive, I love it

From what I remember hybrid powertrain is much harder to properly simulate than electric motor is (which has pretty simple power and torque curves). Also there probably wouldn't be even EV's in LFS if the E-Challenge championship hadn't exist.

You should not have access to mod vehicles with a demo account in first place.

Master Race car's E-Challenge 2022 wrap-up

After some delay in delivering the official result of the final race of the season (and few other delays...), we can finally conclude the second edition of the Master Race car's E-Challenge championship.

First of all I'd like to thank to everyone involved in this project - The Master Race car team who provided all the necessary infrastructure and who's members were an incredible helping hand; the New Dimension Racing team who was responsible for highly professional direction of all official sessions; the Simbroadcasts.tv team who delivered incredibly exciting broadcasts from all three championship rounds; the Live for Speed developers who's hard work and willingness to experiment made all of this possible in first place; and last but not least to all the competitors who took part in the championship and delivered exciting racing.

We had 3 exciting races at 3 unique layouts across 2 city environments. As the E-Challenge was, is and will be an unique racing competition with many unique features and never-tried-before concepts, we hugely admire all drivers who entered this uncharted territory and bravely faced all the new challenges we put against them.


The defending champion Jimi Virtanen had a tough task to prove he's worth it - over 50 challengers registered in attempt to dethrone him, but in the end it was Jimi who finished all three events on the podium, winning two of them and conquering the driver's championship table with 69 points (haha, nice).
The most active S1DUS driver Niko Puntola tried his best to beat Jimi on the track, but even his three podium places (third, second and first in this order) were not enough to do the job and secured only second place with 58 championship points.
In third place, another S1DUS driver Gábor Gyüre had to skip one of the rounds due to technical difficulties, however his strong results in other two events (two second places) were good enough to earn the third place in the standings with 36 points.
Honorable mentions go to Dawid Góźdź and Jared Meade, who ended up in 4th and 5th place respectively.

A special honorable mention goes to Volfgangas Gudys, who despite being one of the slower guys in the competition was still fully determined to attend all three rounds.

Full results below:


In the teams championship things were much more exciting: entering the final round, Master Race car had 3 points advantage over S1DUS, while SAVAGE SimSports and Last Lap Motorsports were level on points in the fight for the third place.
But it was S1DUS team who thanks to the strong performance in final round took the overall lead in the championship with 113 points.
Master Race car team didn't have the upper hand and had to settle for second place with 97 points, followed by SAVAGE SimSports whose entrants were more successful in the season finale and their 24 points were enough to get the third place ahead of Last Lap Motorsports.
Honorable mention goes to Race Green Autosports team for finishing in top 5, beating the Sim Broadcasts team by a single point.

Full results below:


Monetary driver awards:

The Master Race car's E-Challenge Champion Award goes to Jimi Virtanen, who undeniably won the championship and our hearts. Let's see if he can remain on the top spot after future third edition of E-Challenge with 10€ in his pocket.

The Clean Driver Award will go to one of the following competitors:
Jimi Virtanen
Ramon Hornos
Dawid Góźdź
Jefrin Jacob
Lorenzo Lucidi

The organisation team evaluated the efforts of all competitors and determined the group of 5 drivers with highest driving standards who are equally eligible for this prize. Unfortunately the clean driving cannot be properly measured and therefore it is not possible to pick the one driver without encountering the possibility of bias and favoritism. Therefore (as stated in the rules) the winner of this prize will be determined in a public draw, which will happen on 13th of September during RTFR broadcast, using randomly generated result. Before the draw all eligible drivers will be contacted with further information about the draw process.

Both monetary prize winners will be then contacted in following weeks with payment information; preferred payment method is PayPal.


The future plans:

Despite the cold start in the first edition, the second edition of E-Challenge was a huge success.
This sets a high bar for the third edition, which is already being worked on behind the curtain.

We can't give away everything, but we can tease you with simple facts about what's being prepared:
New competition vehicle, new tracks, new event format, new strategic elements to play with,... and more and more!
We listened to the feedback we got in the post-season driver survey and try to accommodate some of the great ideas and wishes.
Speaking of the survey - follow this link to see all the responses and reflections the drivers and organisers had.

Thank you for being part of the E-Challenge, see you around in few months when the third edition of E-Challenge is unveiled!

Last edited by michal 1279, Tue 6 Sep 2022, 09:56.

There is a limit at around 200 m/s (720 km/h) where the game stops you from going any faster. Don't remember the actual reason for it, something relevant to either safety, hacks (in pre-mod era this speed was simply not possible to achieve naturally) or maybe the physics code stops working properly at so high speeds (after all at that speed you are getting out of the general subsonic aerodynamics territory and the code might not work at all nearing the transsonic speeds).

My biggest issue with hotlaps is that they do not count towards any LFSW statistic. Drive 100 laps in HL mode, but it will be 0km driven today next to your name.

For me as a statistics junkie that is very discouraging.

The survey was sent to every user who did attend at least one round of the 2022 Master Race car's E-Challenge Championship.

We got 23 responses (56% return) and a lot of valuable feedback.
Let's see what did you think about the championship:

In the first question drivers were asked to rate specific individual traits of the championship on a 5-point scale from great to terrible.

We can see most of the mentioned aspects were positively received. The only aspect where opinions are close to neutral is the qualifying success ballast, which didn't meet the expectations on the organisers side as well and is likely to be dropped from future editions. Rest is very likely to remain in some form.

In the next question we asked the drivers if the race was too long or too short.

It is clear drivers were mostly satisfied with the race length, which was a copy of the Formula E concept.


We agree that 3 races were not enough, but we had to be conservative this time. Also the fact only 20 competitors attended the final round (compared to 32 in round 1) suggests the number was "just about right" this time. Let's see if we can keep the drivers more engaged next time.

Next series of questions was aimed at the fake weather system.

The dry/wet weather system was highly experimental part of the series, and therefore we couldn't afford to deploy it in more sessions than we did. However as the system worked well and was well received, we do intend to keep and extend this system for future runnings.


Hard to make any conclusion from this, but despite the cold nature of dry R4 tyres they were the more popular tyre to race on.

Then questions aimed at our partners in crime followed:

Guess SBTV does awesome job!


And so does NDR (sorry Nova)

In the next question we asked the drivers who did not attend all three rounds for the reason of their absence.

Most of the responses are collisions with other real life events, which are indeed a higher priority. Some had technical issues that prevented them from attending or joined the series mid-season.
Some custom answers did leave a scratch on my head though.

Monetary awards feedback followed:

The Clean Driver Award was extremely well received, the Best driver awards a little bit less.
Open answers were available so more than 3 original options appear. We intend to keep some symbolic prize pool as long as resources are there.

Future edition of E-Challenge:


Guess people interested in responding to this survey are also interested in racing here next time. I love sampling bias!


5 is about right, no? We will definitely aim for more than 3 rounds.


Although there were complaints about event timing, most responses would stick to the used weekend slot or run slightly later. Only one response was a mid-week day.

Wishes for next edition with open answers:


The competition vehicle was received rather well, although it had some small flaws that are worth fixing.
The next generation of the E-Challenger vehicle is already being worked on and looks very promising.



General questions:

Looks like we made some positive impact after all

"Anything else?":


TL;DR:
2022 edition of E-Challenge was great, but we will do everything we can to make the 2023 edition even better! These survey results will help a ton! Thanks everyone who left the feedback to help shape the future of E-Challenge

Also the season wrap-up thread coming soon.

So I was randomly browsing LFS World stats when I noticed some strange data in the latest race I attended.

Yesterday we raced for 300 km on very long custom Westhill layout with multiple original LFS cars and even more mod cars. The race went as is usual and everything worked flawlessly including the race finish, but in the LFSW results it shows incorrect gap in one occasion - the gap between 4th and 5th was 0,12 seconds, but the result says there was 1 lap gap. By the completed laps count it looks like a whole one lap was ignored by LFSW somewhere in my run (not sure if the last lap or somewhere in the middle), although I'm classified like if I completed all laps.

https://www.lfsworld.net/?win= ... 01279&raceId=24648669



Any idea what went wrong?

EDIT: can provide mpr if it is any useful.

Quote from versiu :

U seem to be very closed to any development or opening this game to more people

That is a strange statement considering I'm indirectly responsible for existence of mods in LFS in first place. But I'm not here to brag about it...

Quote from versiu :

Worrying about someone who can judge game basing on mod content is a bit silly

It is perfectly valid concern for a game where vast majority of content consists of mods.

Quote from versiu :

Modders in RBR making stages for years now and it really good quality models and ain't riped from other games. Also in Assetto Corsa there's modding teams who scan road themselves, doing photos etc to make map.

Yep, that's why. Modders in RBR and AC are doing great job and put in massive effort. Meanwhile most modders in LFS take random model of their favourite car from sketchfab, load it in editor and export to LFS. Physics is wonky, lights don't work, shadow does not exist,... Feels like with the editor it is easy to make a mod, but hard to make a good mod.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see well made custom tracks in LFS, but what I'm trying to say is - LFS is not ready for community-made tracks. And even less so is the community itself. I've been told how hard to use the track editor is compared to the vehicle editor, we are not ready for it. At least not until LFS modders do the mods at the same quality level like RBR and AC modders do...

Quote from versiu :

If somethig is bad quality u just give it bat rating and never use anymore. Simple.

That's exactly what new players will do with whole game if they encounter such "quality" tracks when they try out the game - rate LFS badly and never use it anymore. Yup, simple...