Oh right, didn't think about that
Yes.
1) Vsync will only limit to 60fps if your monitor refresh rate is 60Hz (they are linked)
2) Only vsync can effectively eliminate tearing. Manual limitation might sorta work but it also might not
3) Vsync will cut your fps dramatically if you are for some reason not able to reach your monitor's refresh rate. Every time you dip below it your fps will be cut in half, so for example on 60Hz if you can't hold 60fps it will be cut to 30fps, if you can't reach that it will be cut to 15fps, etc.
4) Manual limitation should really only be used to relieve your graphics card from unnecessary stress (or prevent fps jumping up and down too much). Depending on your PC's timer resolution the manual limitation can also be considerably less accurate than using vsync
Overall, vsync should only be used if you notice tearing and you have a graphics card / CPU combo that can reliably hold your monitor's refresh rate in fps.
1) Vsync will only limit to 60fps if your monitor refresh rate is 60Hz (they are linked)
2) Only vsync can effectively eliminate tearing. Manual limitation might sorta work but it also might not
3) Vsync will cut your fps dramatically if you are for some reason not able to reach your monitor's refresh rate. Every time you dip below it your fps will be cut in half, so for example on 60Hz if you can't hold 60fps it will be cut to 30fps, if you can't reach that it will be cut to 15fps, etc.
4) Manual limitation should really only be used to relieve your graphics card from unnecessary stress (or prevent fps jumping up and down too much). Depending on your PC's timer resolution the manual limitation can also be considerably less accurate than using vsync
Overall, vsync should only be used if you notice tearing and you have a graphics card / CPU combo that can reliably hold your monitor's refresh rate in fps.
This thread is going in circles only rivalled by oval servers. The cold hard truth is that Scawen apparently doesn't want or care about 45° lock angles. It would be a thing of < 1 minute to re-enable, but seeing how it hasn't happened since 2006 when this thread was started seems to be a good indicator that it won't happen at all. So your BMW-whatever has 45° lock angle? Well, your car isn't in LFS.
With the VWS Scawen will finally move into the right direction of severely limiting car setup options, because they're frankly quite ridiculous. I don't think this will immediately apply to all road cars, but in the end it really should. This is a change long overdue, IMO.
+1. For all reasons that may exist to not have 45° lock, the physics definitely aren't one. If anything, the missing tyre-fender interaction is a problem, but that also happens on < 45° lock angles.
With the VWS Scawen will finally move into the right direction of severely limiting car setup options, because they're frankly quite ridiculous. I don't think this will immediately apply to all road cars, but in the end it really should. This is a change long overdue, IMO.
+1. For all reasons that may exist to not have 45° lock, the physics definitely aren't one. If anything, the missing tyre-fender interaction is a problem, but that also happens on < 45° lock angles.
I'm guessing it's the German abbreviation for "Kupplung", so the clutch, yes. To fix it, do what NotAnIllusion said; lift the throttle while shifting to the next gear.
If you're using autoclutch also make sure
1) if you spin, get OFF the throttle
2) if you recover from a standstill (after spin, etc.) shift down to first gear before accelerating, and don't make the first gear too long in the setup
Not doing these things can burn out the clutch really bad.
If you're using autoclutch also make sure
1) if you spin, get OFF the throttle
2) if you recover from a standstill (after spin, etc.) shift down to first gear before accelerating, and don't make the first gear too long in the setup
Not doing these things can burn out the clutch really bad.
The forum name is equal to the license name
Or just go here: https://www.lfs.net/?page=register
And enter a user name with space and click "Check availability & spelling" below.
Why does nobody ever read what Scawen says?
It would require a pretty big graphics engine overhaul to allow for dynamic lights that look anything near as good as the ones in newer games. Unless we ever get night racing, which would make such a change necessary, don't even dream on that getting implemented. It is nothing more than eyecandy (in a racing simulation!) that would require a significant amount of work for 'nothing'.
Driving with 360° view is freaky 
Well, you're wrong
For example "Bob Smith"
Yes. Options > Display > Interface (bottom right corner)
The entire right side is related to the colours of the track minimap.
E: Heh, too slow
The entire right side is related to the colours of the track minimap.
E: Heh, too slow
Sorry for barging in, but, what if the user name has a space in it? Mind, I have never even looked at lapper and have no idea how it works, but just using the first occurrence of a space as user/message separation (looking at the !pm command here) seems problematic. 
Also Bass-Driver, it's spelled private, not privet.
Also Bass-Driver, it's spelled private, not privet.
Cars aren't modifiable in LFS. There is a hack tool named LFS Tweak, but even that only allows quite rough changes that won't help you with your problem. Even if you had a way to tweak all parameters to match your planned car, I'd say LFS still has too many physics problems and inaccuracies to be of any use.
Now I'd say your best bet is probably rFactor, but this requires 1) tons of work to get your car in 2) tons of work and in-detail expert knowledge of tyre physics and car dynamics to make this car behave remotely like the real thing.
Honestly, overall I'd say you probably have to scrap the idea of using a sim to experiment. Unless you find someone knowledgeable to write a sim for your car specifically, you won't get any useful data out of a computer simulation. The time would be better spent working on the actual car and making tests with it.
Now I'd say your best bet is probably rFactor, but this requires 1) tons of work to get your car in 2) tons of work and in-detail expert knowledge of tyre physics and car dynamics to make this car behave remotely like the real thing.
Honestly, overall I'd say you probably have to scrap the idea of using a sim to experiment. Unless you find someone knowledgeable to write a sim for your car specifically, you won't get any useful data out of a computer simulation. The time would be better spent working on the actual car and making tests with it.
That's not what he meant, but the missing punctuation made it hard to understand
Corrected:
"Talking about tyres - it's not an important thing, but I hope they will include a sound when driving on curbs with the new patch."
And I agree, a tyre impact sound, dynamically created whenever the tyre experiences sudden compression/force would be very nice, both for bumps on the road and especially for the kerbs. In a real car, going over kerbs can be extremely loud (granted, we lack sawtooth kerbs in LFS), where as in LFS the most you hear is your FF wheel rattling, if the shaking FF isn't mysteriously drowned out as it tends to happen with LFS' FF implementation, that is.
You can see the diff quite clearly without zooming in and both JPEGs are larger than the PNG. Since this screenshot has lots of large uniform spaces the PNG's compression can work better here.
Yeah, if you screenshot a pitch black area then they would not be huge :rolleyes:
They will be huge if the picture contains lots of detail, which screenshots tend to have.
They will be huge if the picture contains lots of detail, which screenshots tend to have.
Yeah, but that's because with PrtScr you paste it into an image editing program and save it as PNG, which uses lossless compression resulting in a smaller filesize without quality loss. When posting stuff on the web you should use JPEG anyway, since the file size will be smaller by an order of magnitude compared to PNG. The only exception for that is simple graphics (few colours used and large areas having the same colour) and/or pictures where the quality is of utmost importance.
Huh? Can you please post an example of this? Ctrl-S saves as bmp, which uses no compression and should therefore be 100% quality.
Granted, at least when viewing a MPR there could be an optional smoothing algorithm running, since what happens in the 'future' is perfectly well known in that case. So instead of simply letting the physics run their course with the last packet input, you could alter the input between the packets so that the car position matches the 'future' packet as close as possible when it is read from the MPR, minimizing the huge abrupt warps without resorting to the cars floating around magically. Not easy but definitely possible.
The realtime network code could also be improved to avoid warping, at the cost of delaying the car position by at least one packet. I think it would actually be preferable to have slightly more delayed reactions of your opponents than them driving or warping into you for a split second before continuing their real path.
However, the current implementation already works well enough, meaning we probably won't see that changed for a long time, if ever.
The realtime network code could also be improved to avoid warping, at the cost of delaying the car position by at least one packet. I think it would actually be preferable to have slightly more delayed reactions of your opponents than them driving or warping into you for a split second before continuing their real path.
However, the current implementation already works well enough, meaning we probably won't see that changed for a long time, if ever.
Becky, in LFS you're actually not driving on the polygons, but on a separate collision wireframe. This is apparent on kerbs (some of them are completely flat rendered but the tyre will still move up and down when driving over them) and especially on the grass, where the tyres sometimes even visibly sink into it. Also some places on the drag strip are bugged and you can almost make the whole car disappear under the grass.
I'm sure the laser scan data can be utilized to much higher detail than the display model allows, however I'm not sure if the small bumps are really that important (the LFS FFB swallows a lot of them anyway). It's more about the small ditches and general unevenness on a track that seems to be missing on regular LFS tracks.
I'm sure the laser scan data can be utilized to much higher detail than the display model allows, however I'm not sure if the small bumps are really that important (the LFS FFB swallows a lot of them anyway). It's more about the small ditches and general unevenness on a track that seems to be missing on regular LFS tracks.
I agree, the forums have been appalling lately, especially the Rockingham related threads. Maybe this forum should be renamed to live4chan, that would be honestly more fitting for what was going on.
Go mow a lawn or something, FFS!
If the rFactor version is to be trusted, the 'elevations' are really only minor crests barely worth talking about. The only hope is that the laser scanning finally produces a track with a realistic amount of bumps compared to the clinically smooth tracks we have in LFS. That said, I hope it's not the FFB implementation that just hides all the detail...
Nice to hear an official statement, though personally I'm much more interested in the physics improvements of the upcoming release. 
I see that you kinda have to take the opportunities as they arise, but I really hope Rockingham is more interesting to drive than it looks from the layouts and Youtube videos (which is not very - another flat infield track doesn't exactly leave me waiting in anticipation). It's nice this track was made utilizing laser scanning, which besides being much more accurate than eye measurement hopefully also sped up the track creation at least a bit. That said, I do hope this (and the mysterious extra car) didn't take up Eric's whole attention. It would be quite a shame if Rockingham is going to be the only track-related change we're going to see on the next release.
S3 appearing on the radar is good news! Means I'll finally be able to make use of the extra £12 lying around unused on my LFS account
(assuming S3 will still cost £12).
I see that you kinda have to take the opportunities as they arise, but I really hope Rockingham is more interesting to drive than it looks from the layouts and Youtube videos (which is not very - another flat infield track doesn't exactly leave me waiting in anticipation). It's nice this track was made utilizing laser scanning, which besides being much more accurate than eye measurement hopefully also sped up the track creation at least a bit. That said, I do hope this (and the mysterious extra car) didn't take up Eric's whole attention. It would be quite a shame if Rockingham is going to be the only track-related change we're going to see on the next release.
S3 appearing on the radar is good news! Means I'll finally be able to make use of the extra £12 lying around unused on my LFS account
(assuming S3 will still cost £12).Have you even looked at how the driver is seated in the MRT? It's neither a go-kart nor is there a door to open - there is no "sticking your leg out." If you think that getting stuck ending your race isn't fun, then you can enable the car reset option. If however getting the repair on reset is too unrealistic then you're a hypocrite... err I meant then you can use AIRIO or some other app to apply a penalty, which also nicely serves as simulating that it would need some time to reset.
Actually, pressing 'I' on the keyboard is a lot closer to what you do in a real car to start it than it is to point & click your mouse cursor somewhere on the screen.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG