I think it is, as you said, mostly apparent in low-speed corners. I remember trying to get turn one at Blackwood right in the BF1. An absolute menace because you had to brake just the right way or else you would lose several tenths as well as have a bad entry to the chicane.
In reality though, you never see Formula One cars entering a hairpin in that fashion, at least not on a quick lap.
In theory (in real world racing) you want to be sliding just a bit all the way through a corner. I guess (but if anyone has a proper explanation, I'd like to hear it) the problem in LFS is that once you pass the optimum slip angle, the drop-off in grip isn't as big as it should be. So you can arrive pretty much sideways at a corner with the car pretty much already rotated without losing any momentum, and then get on the gas faster and harder than if you took the slow line.
The problem is how to turn in so that the car slides just the right amount at the right point on the track.
So, it's a well known fact that the current version of LFS requires you to enter corners sideways (like in a rally, yay) to get the maximum out of the car. I've never perfected this and I've always wondered how you do it.
I seem to get more understeer than oversteer when I try to do it, and if I try to brake a little harder the car just snaps at some point because of the brake bias.
So what's the idea of this technique? How do you properly arrive sideways at a corner without overdoing (or underdoing) it?
I've had iRacing for years now, rFactor for double as long, some GTR and GTR 2 here and there, racer for the odd fun drive and LFS for 8 years. In the meantime I have also driven various formulae and other racing cars, and it is my conviction that iRacing delivers one of the most realistic simulation drives yet. What it lacks in some parts of the experience, it makes up for in graphics, sense of realism etc. LFS comes second in many aspects, and I know that many of the things bugging me about LFS' physics simulation are already being worked on by the team.
With that in mind, I can't see why it is so important for some people to create this "we are better than them!" mood with threads like this or the rFactor vs. LFS thread. You don't have to choose either one. I can do iRacing for a couple of hours and when that becomes too serious, I switch to rFactor or GTR and sometimes I do a couple of nostalgic laps in LFS. It's not like having one game bars you from using any of its competitors. The fact that a team of three developers have created a simulator that is competing with simulators with 10-30 times is remarkable in itself - I don't expect three people to create the most realistic simulation in all of mankind, and so I don't mind that there are options out there that are more realistic. LFS will always be something special, for many reasons.
The old shift indicators in LFS used to calculate the amount of power available in the next gear and compare it to the current output, and obviously when more power was available by shifting, the light would come on.
It's generally a very easy calculation to do for your setup, given the car's torque and power-curves as well as the gear ratios of your setup, but it's not going to gain you tenths, so I would just shift just before the redline and then concentrate on my driving instead.
Apologies for being drunk. That said, I don't quite agree with what I have highlighted from your post. Everyone here has one price when they consider what future updates might add to the game and another price when they consider the game in its here-and-now status. What most of us have paid is a mixture of these two prices - we pay for the immediate entertainment, combined with the expectation of future improvements.
So strictly speaking, noone can really say whether or not we are in position to request various features from the crew.
Let me give a short example of what the communication could be:
"Scawen is progressing with feature X and is currently working on getting this or that to work properly. Eric has been reworking South City with huge banners featuring naked girls, so everyone has something to look at while racing. Everything is good and the world is at peace. Love, Devs."
Obviously, posting reports like these every single week would make them trivial and unimportant, but if they wrote a small report every other month, nobody would be questioning the vital signs of Live for Speed.
Much has apparently been said about the developers way of working, their speed, the patches and features in this thread. This is not what it is about.
Several people have commented the way the developers work, and that they do not want to change it - that's fine. This isn't about making them change their way of working, however. Asking them to communicate with their community - and not the forum - every once in a while is not asking them to change the way they work. It's pretty simple PR.
I acknowledged in my original post that the developers visit the forums frequently and communicate with the forum community. What I was asking, however, was that they would communicate with the overall community, by placing the information on the official website instead of spreading it out across hundreds of forum posts.
Perhaps I was being unclear. In "extreme" I meant the moderating level of presence. I have nothing against the moderators being a part of the forum by participating in discussions and other threads. But when it comes to bureaucratic oversight, this forum is by far the worst I have ever experienced. Just consider that a few posts back, you were considering closing this thread - a thread which, originally, seemed like a very sensible starting point for a debate.
I am not asking the developers to start handing out releasedates left and right, I do not want them to announce a new feature every month, I am not asking them to release screenshots and detailed work reports.
I am asking them to post progress reports - short or long - every other month or so. That does not mean announcing anything new or setting a releasedate - they could just tell us that they are on track and that everything is working fine or whatever.
I think the extreme level of moderators' presence reflects the state of this forum.
Yet again, take a look at iRacing for example. I know that it is being developed in a different way and with a lot more ressources, but the fact that they are constantly letting the community in on what's happening has resulted in a lot less speculation. The community knows what's coming, so there is no need to speculate if the developers are working on a spaceship or whatever. rFactor, on the other hand, has died a slow and silent death. Sure, the community is alive, but this is merely due to the fact that rFactor is so easy to modify - something that Live for Speed does not provide.
Could it not be, that this is down to the frequency of the information? If all the community gets is a small report every eight or nine months, then it seems obvious to me that a lot more talking will be done between those reports. If the reports were more regular, perhaps most people would get a more realistic picture of the state of the development of Live for Speed.
I think most people can understand the idea that each developer has his own area, and that they are hardly ever working on the same thing. Also, understand that this is not only about what is contained in these reports - it is just as much about confirming to the community that Live for Speed is still very much alive and breathing.
I understand that the developers are in a tight situation. But I believe this can be partially traced back to their own handling of this situation. There is a huge amount of expectation in this community - partly because of the official information, partly because of rumors-turned-fact. Measures can be taken, however, to relieve this expectation so that the developers can focus more on developing and less on threads about NOS in the improvements section.
Agreed, the forum is a mess already. But is it not very possible that this is the result of people being underinformed? If there was one official source to which everyone could refer, rumors and speculation would be worthless.
The forum needn't be littered with people speculating when the next update will be released or what it will contain. If the needs for this kind of information were to be satisfied from an official source, perhaps the forum could turn its focus elsewhere and this place would actually be bearable.
Furthermore, I do not see how an official word from the developers could possibly spark rumors. In relation to what I have written above, I would think that it would have quite the opposite effect.
I hardly visit these forums anymore, and whenever I do, it's mostly to get official news concerning Live for Speed.
We all know that the developers are hard at work on updating Live for Speed and creating new content, and this is in no way a plea for them to work harder or faster - they are already doing a fantastic job, and I can say that I surely wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
I do however miss some more official contact with the developer team. I know that all three of them browse the forum frequently and respond to bug reports, suggestions etc. But if you look at the official website, liveforspeed.com, it hasn't been updated since December last year, when the Scirocco was postponed. I could imagine that potential buyers wouldn't exactly be turned on by this lack of information. Furthermore, searching the forums for the developers' replies is a tiresome job to do.
I am not asking for the developers to release screenshots every week or set releasedates for the updates. I am merely asking the developers to write a progress update on the official site every month or other, so that visitors (and the community as well) does not have to blindly hold on to the illusion of the mystic development of Live for Speed.
You're speaking as if being left- or right-footed makes you completely unable to use the other foot for anything but on-off use. This isn't exactly right. As everyone else here said, it is a matter of learning to be sensitive with the foot (or hand for that matter) that you don't usually use. It's a way of "integrating" the various parts of your brain, and I can guarantee you that learning to do so properly will result in better driving.
Besides, you're using your left foot for the clutch - surely that requires some sensitivity in your left foot?
Had a quick look at this and I do agree with his point on the rear end. I think this has a lot more to do with the fact that you can feel the forces in real life, which does make it a lot easier to correct oversteer and so forth.
Basically the overall level of grip and the balance is pretty well done in LFS, and what makes it different from real life are the things that we can't reproduce on the computer like actually feeling the acceleration, the braking, the cornering, the small bumps in the road.
Another difference I think is that the top speed seems to be just a little bit higher in LFS than in real life. Granted the car I drove was limited to a few hundred RPM less than the cars used in the races, but still it only did 215 km/h down the straight at Valencia. And the National configuration, which was the one I drove, isn't exactly a high-downforce configuration. Compare that to 225 or even more down the Blackwood straight in LFS.
Seeing that you are a demo-racer and thus haven't paid for LFS, I am having some trouble believing that you have tried iRacing which doesn't even offer a demo. Trust me, iRacing is nothing like NFS.
I think LFS and iRacing are somewhat equal in many ways, and I belive that those two simulators are the top of the simulation scene. Both are absolutely miles ahead of anything based off the ISI-engine, which I think is the main competitor. Haven't tried NetKar fully, but the demo did not impress me. The old NK was fun though. Oh and then theres GTR, GTR2 and everything else by SimBin - they're all very good simulators, but not in the league of LFS and iRacing. Besides, I seem to remember that they're based on a modified version of the ISI engine?