RallyX is a completely different beast, because the clutch is subjected to extra stress by the jumps. What you'd have to do is to lift off while you're airborne, to make sure the clutch doesn't die when you ram back into the ground with fast spinning wheels that suddenly have grip again. The flat shifting itself should actually be less of a problem, since the traction is all around lower compared to a road race, which means you'll actually spin the tyres more than slipping the clutch.
^ Yep, what he said. A two hour race on Blackwood is about 75 laps, but the XFG has the fuel capacity for about 90 laps. A no-stop strategy would be possible if you can make the tyres last - I'd take about 85% fuel for that.
To determine what pit/fuel strategy is best, you have to first assess what a pitstop costs you (how much time you lose compared to a normal lap). Then you have to find out (by lots of testing) how much faster you actually are with a lower fuel load and not having to be as careful with the tyres. Then the question basically looks like "am I faster with 80% fuel and careful driving, or two times 40% fuel + time lost at a pitstop?"
You also have to consider that a pitstop generally breaks the flow / your concentration and is a risk in itself, as you could get a drive-through if you're not careful enough. Additionally to that, if you drive a no-stopper at 98% of race pace to preserve the tyres you'll most likely have less accidents compared to driving at 102% at a one-stopper, where you're always pressured to be as fast as possible to make up for the time lost at the pitstop. As a bonus, usually not trying to drive fast makes you end up with faster laptimes than when actively pushing it
To determine what pit/fuel strategy is best, you have to first assess what a pitstop costs you (how much time you lose compared to a normal lap). Then you have to find out (by lots of testing) how much faster you actually are with a lower fuel load and not having to be as careful with the tyres. Then the question basically looks like "am I faster with 80% fuel and careful driving, or two times 40% fuel + time lost at a pitstop?"
You also have to consider that a pitstop generally breaks the flow / your concentration and is a risk in itself, as you could get a drive-through if you're not careful enough. Additionally to that, if you drive a no-stopper at 98% of race pace to preserve the tyres you'll most likely have less accidents compared to driving at 102% at a one-stopper, where you're always pressured to be as fast as possible to make up for the time lost at the pitstop. As a bonus, usually not trying to drive fast makes you end up with faster laptimes than when actively pushing it
After one lap? I have to see this. Your shifting technique must suck in ways never seen before. Not even autoclutch does this, though maybe you can somehow achieve it by using the button clutch on the lowest button rate.
Seriously, the clutch heating does a rather bad job at preventing flat shifting. In a typical road race clutch heat is no factor at all, unless you do it to the extreme like zeug described.
Seriously, the clutch heating does a rather bad job at preventing flat shifting. In a typical road race clutch heat is no factor at all, unless you do it to the extreme like zeug described.
Flat shifting = you're not lifting the throttle during a shift = you're longer on the throttle during acceleration = slightly faster acceleration.
However, there are also negative points:
However, there are also negative points:
- the clutch gets less effective and dies after prolonged use of this technique
- the driven wheels get a quick jolt every time you do this, which might not be the best idea regarding cornering stability (though it has to be said, the demo cars are generally not powerful enough to get you in big trouble)
Yes and no. Brake fluid almost doesn't compress at all. With your foot you are basically directly pressing against the brake discs (once pad and disc touch).
However, to make it possible for you to brake at all, there's both mechanical and hydraulic force multiplication/leverage going on, not to forget the vacuum driven power assist which removes a lot of the braking effort, too. All this results in a pretty high power multiplication, but the (for us preferable) tradeoff is that you have to push the pedal much further to move the brake pad a tiny bit. If we for example have a power multiplication of 1:36, pushing the pedal with 10kg will push at the pads with 360kg, however to move the brake pad 1mm we'd have to move the brake pedal 3.6cm. It might seem like the pedal position has anything to do with how strong you brake, but this is only indirectly true and only when applying relatively weak braking forces. At some point there's simply no place in the brake system that could move away a little and the brake strength becomes clearly purely pressure dependant.
However, to make it possible for you to brake at all, there's both mechanical and hydraulic force multiplication/leverage going on, not to forget the vacuum driven power assist which removes a lot of the braking effort, too. All this results in a pretty high power multiplication, but the (for us preferable) tradeoff is that you have to push the pedal much further to move the brake pad a tiny bit. If we for example have a power multiplication of 1:36, pushing the pedal with 10kg will push at the pads with 360kg, however to move the brake pad 1mm we'd have to move the brake pedal 3.6cm. It might seem like the pedal position has anything to do with how strong you brake, but this is only indirectly true and only when applying relatively weak braking forces. At some point there's simply no place in the brake system that could move away a little and the brake strength becomes clearly purely pressure dependant.
Nothing? You cannot tune or alter the engine's output in any way ingame.
There are things like LFS Tweak that allow you to alter some of the car specs from outside of the game, but this is only for messing around offline.
There are things like LFS Tweak that allow you to alter some of the car specs from outside of the game, but this is only for messing around offline.
I think the main problem right now is the tyres - more specifically the poor modelling of their life cycle. At the moment, the rubber has only one and a half factors affecting it: heat and to a minor extent wear. With that I mean the only thing you have to watch out for is to not overheat the tyres and to change them before they pop due to wearing completely down.
You cannot ruin your tyres by overheating (you just lose time until they cool back down, then they're in perfect condition again) or overexerting them (no graining or tyre failure due to for example taking a curb in a bad way), you cannot flatspot them (technically you can, but even extreme flatspots have a minimal effect on performance) and the wear has no effect on the tyre whatsoever, other than making it cool down faster and weigh less, which means the more worn the tyre, the better. If anything, the wear should at least affect the relative camber of the tyre surface, making them work less well when the surface gets "equalized" to the ground.
Besides that, the R1 to R4 compounds are completely made up and not modelled after real tyres at all, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing by itself, their current behaviour is limiting the compound choice pretty severely. It was a good step to alter the tyre heating behaviour and make the softest compound not automatically the one you'll choose for a race, but the general tyre strategy is still pretty much to take the softest compound you can get away with not overheating completely during the race.
The point is, tyres aren't modelled well enough yet to make the way you use them and the choice of compound realistic. Of course criticising is much easier than fixing, especially when things are done in the LFS way of modelling components and behaviours abstractly and just letting realism happen as you put the parts together.
LFS is at this point a brilliant simulator of vehicle dynamics, but when everything comes together it does not resemble the characteristics of real life racing all that accurately. I'm not sure if it ever will, either, but at least it has set a respectable landmark in sim racing.
[/
]
You cannot ruin your tyres by overheating (you just lose time until they cool back down, then they're in perfect condition again) or overexerting them (no graining or tyre failure due to for example taking a curb in a bad way), you cannot flatspot them (technically you can, but even extreme flatspots have a minimal effect on performance) and the wear has no effect on the tyre whatsoever, other than making it cool down faster and weigh less, which means the more worn the tyre, the better. If anything, the wear should at least affect the relative camber of the tyre surface, making them work less well when the surface gets "equalized" to the ground.
Besides that, the R1 to R4 compounds are completely made up and not modelled after real tyres at all, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing by itself, their current behaviour is limiting the compound choice pretty severely. It was a good step to alter the tyre heating behaviour and make the softest compound not automatically the one you'll choose for a race, but the general tyre strategy is still pretty much to take the softest compound you can get away with not overheating completely during the race.
The point is, tyres aren't modelled well enough yet to make the way you use them and the choice of compound realistic. Of course criticising is much easier than fixing, especially when things are done in the LFS way of modelling components and behaviours abstractly and just letting realism happen as you put the parts together.
LFS is at this point a brilliant simulator of vehicle dynamics, but when everything comes together it does not resemble the characteristics of real life racing all that accurately. I'm not sure if it ever will, either, but at least it has set a respectable landmark in sim racing.
[/
]Well, the meaning of my post got kinda lost. What the heck are "shifting arms"? 
This would be better:
If you have a G25 you only can only shift in the mode that the car's gearbox supports. That means in normal road cars you may use the shifter in H-gate mode, but for most racing cars you have to use the sequential mode or the paddles.
This would be better:
If you have a G25 you only can only shift in the mode that the car's gearbox supports. That means in normal road cars you may use the shifter in H-gate mode, but for most racing cars you have to use the sequential mode or the paddles.
Sorry but that is a terrible translation
^ Once the point has been proven, lock this thread and give out infractions for spamming image macros. Don't forget to sticky this thread for everyone to see.
Wenn du ein G25 hast, dann kannst du nur mit dem Schaltmodus schalten, den das Auto auch unterstützt. Sprich bei den normalen Straßenautos funktioniert die manuelle Schaltung, während man bei den meisten Rennwagen die sequentielle Schaltung bzw. die Schaltwippen verwenden muss.
PS: Das hier ist ein Englisches Forum
PS: Das hier ist ein Englisches Forum
Ignoring the fact that threads like this are completely useless, I'd go with wet weather.
Tbh, I think night races would be a try-once-and-then-never-again gimmick, and I can't see the appeal of driving fast without seeing the track. Most people can't even handle the effects of wind, how do you think night races compare to that? (Though granted, that is an argument valid for both night and wet races.)
The only time where night races (implying a dynamic day-night cycle) would be cool is on the 24h race, but that's about it. Driving in rain, however, is something much more common to happen in real racing. Having to deal with changing conditions and pit strategy sounds, at least to me, much more interesting than setting the monitor brightness to max.
Tbh, I think night races would be a try-once-and-then-never-again gimmick, and I can't see the appeal of driving fast without seeing the track. Most people can't even handle the effects of wind, how do you think night races compare to that? (Though granted, that is an argument valid for both night and wet races.)
The only time where night races (implying a dynamic day-night cycle) would be cool is on the 24h race, but that's about it. Driving in rain, however, is something much more common to happen in real racing. Having to deal with changing conditions and pit strategy sounds, at least to me, much more interesting than setting the monitor brightness to max.
Post random advice that is useless without knowing the faulty code in question....
You should join the "I completely misunderstood Tristan's thread title club".
What do you consider a normal takeoff? Personally I find it rather hard to do a smooth low-rev takeoff in any car in LFS, probably because the low end torque modelling isn't that great and because I'm missing the buttfeel to tell me when the clutch is gripping. The clutch heating model is definitely not perfect, but not THAT bad either.
This is not true. When you want to buy a license, after you select the payment method, you will be redirected to the EULA screen with an "I agree" and "Cancel" button at the bottom.
Testing RAM (physically)
Stroke it gently.
Depends on the car and damage. On high grip FWD cars the yank when shifting can be quite noticeable, which is caused by the steering resistance being low due to the driven front wheels, but when you shift you momentarily don't accelerate, making the FFB much stronger for a split second. There can be a similar effect if the suspension is bent and the car pulls slightly into one direction, but this pull is reversed off throttle.
"Losing grip" is a too broad term to say whether there is anything to feel or not. Locking up the front wheels while cornering? Yes, definitely feelable. Going off road? Yes. Off-power or RWD understeer? No. On-power FWD understeer? Yep. Understeer transforming to oversteer? Yes, mostly.
"Losing grip" is a too broad term to say whether there is anything to feel or not. Locking up the front wheels while cornering? Yes, definitely feelable. Going off road? Yes. Off-power or RWD understeer? No. On-power FWD understeer? Yep. Understeer transforming to oversteer? Yes, mostly.
^ Yep, crashes can affect the suspension geometry and by that also what you feel through the wheel. A head-on crash for example tends to make the steering very light, as the caster is reduced or even inverted. Of course this is not really realistic, because in a real car you wouldn't be able to drive any more after that kind of impact
Because the devs say so.
If luck is on his side he'll survive the massive blood loss and blood poisoning caused by a ruptured colon, but I'd wager this is actually the smaller problem. What baffles my mind is how the spike is not protruding out of his back, through his spine. Either it was stable enough to bend the spike without taking damage, or it's actually completely shredded inside. Yummy.
Can't follow you there, at school they don't teach Becky-math. I don't see how it is valid to put a digit after the recurrence, since this would stop the recurrence by definition. So if we allow this for whatever reason, then the difference would only be 0.0(0)1 if we were talking about 0.9(9)9, which we aren't.
Anyway, I'm out of here. That's like discussing if Pi and 3.141592...(insert Pi digits here) are the same thing. The former is simply the only way to write it fully
Anyway, I'm out of here. That's like discussing if Pi and 3.141592...(insert Pi digits here) are the same thing. The former is simply the only way to write it fully
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG