It's very common for a change in tire brands to be quite dramatic to motorcycle racers. You could find any number of examples, but Tamada in MotoGP went from being a strong championship contender to a nobody when he went from Bridgestone to Michelins. Tires just don't work and feel the same from brand to brand.
Try it out and see!
It is unknown only until you've tried it out.
Few other things in the rest of the setups are self-explanatory, in the full options perspective. Only a small proportion of all the players I've seen in LFS really have an intuitive understanding of what any one setting should be set to for any given arrangement of all the other settings.. Tires are at the extremity of the setup, so it is always easy to read the feedback they are giving you, as opposed to one mechanical part that's in the middle of a lot of other parts' feedback.
My perspective is that you would have tires with a limited number of attributes that are differently but evenly distributed. Just as LFS cars in each class are different but balanced for even overall performance, and again, the sticking point would be for the margin in performance between brands at most or all tracks to be smaller than the margin between drivers' abilities. If that can't be achieved, then I'd agree it would be more grief than fun... but I think it should be possible, and especialy easier later when everything's more balanced than now.
(see above)
That's possible. I do think it's of some value for players like us to explore in the devs' plain sight the pros and cons of ideas like this one.
Try it out and see!
It is unknown only until you've tried it out.Few other things in the rest of the setups are self-explanatory, in the full options perspective. Only a small proportion of all the players I've seen in LFS really have an intuitive understanding of what any one setting should be set to for any given arrangement of all the other settings.. Tires are at the extremity of the setup, so it is always easy to read the feedback they are giving you, as opposed to one mechanical part that's in the middle of a lot of other parts' feedback.
My perspective is that you would have tires with a limited number of attributes that are differently but evenly distributed. Just as LFS cars in each class are different but balanced for even overall performance, and again, the sticking point would be for the margin in performance between brands at most or all tracks to be smaller than the margin between drivers' abilities. If that can't be achieved, then I'd agree it would be more grief than fun... but I think it should be possible, and especialy easier later when everything's more balanced than now.
(see above)
That's possible. I do think it's of some value for players like us to explore in the devs' plain sight the pros and cons of ideas like this one.
Laboratories sometimes just give away capital to friends or family when it was funded with external money, and it's paid itself off. Just one of many possibilities.
Surely some bored rich guy has in mind to game on nVidia's new Tesla..
Surely some bored rich guy has in mind to game on nVidia's new Tesla..
Why would the specs be artificial? They could mimick real tires' differences.
I was thinking the tires would be balanced by different handling characters, not ability to cope with heat or longevity. I'm sure Scawen could figure out a nearly foolproof balancing scheme, though. I'd do some brainstorming except I'm way too tired just now.
Balancing cars is definitely not a piece of cake, but it is feasible. I think it hasn't been thoroughly done yet because it would take more time than is available for something that will have to change anyhow as the rest of the physics evolves and affects the balancing.
I don't know about that. Why are tires more complicated to understand than suspensions for example? I don't think they are, in fact I think they're one of the simplest things to get a feel for, and you could understand different LFS tires just as you can any new rubber type that comes out in RL: by just trying it out, just like everyone learned LFS tires in the first place. Aren't the tires we have now made up too?
+Balancing with tires would work just as it does in RL: different people like and perform with certain rubbers' character better.
+The racing would be more interesting for the same reason LFS is more interesting with rather than without a variety of cars: different lines and race strategies.
-I don't think the tires would be hard to setup. Like I said, it is really not rocket science to figure out a certain rubber's "personality". It wouldn't take that long either.
-There wouldn't necessarily be one superior tire for each race, if it was done right; and obviously this is a critical factor - which I think is not impossible to manage so that the difference is a smaller factor than who is driving.
-Tire selection would be fun to have in leagues.
I do agree it would be tricky to balance it all out, but I personaly doubt Scawen would have laid out the groundwork for it like this, unless he had seen a feasible plan. He might have changed his mind since, sure.. I agree it would probably better happen later, when there are less things in flux.
Remember we're just exchanging ideas here.
I was thinking the tires would be balanced by different handling characters, not ability to cope with heat or longevity. I'm sure Scawen could figure out a nearly foolproof balancing scheme, though. I'd do some brainstorming except I'm way too tired just now.
Balancing cars is definitely not a piece of cake, but it is feasible. I think it hasn't been thoroughly done yet because it would take more time than is available for something that will have to change anyhow as the rest of the physics evolves and affects the balancing.
I don't know about that. Why are tires more complicated to understand than suspensions for example? I don't think they are, in fact I think they're one of the simplest things to get a feel for, and you could understand different LFS tires just as you can any new rubber type that comes out in RL: by just trying it out, just like everyone learned LFS tires in the first place. Aren't the tires we have now made up too?
+Balancing with tires would work just as it does in RL: different people like and perform with certain rubbers' character better.
+The racing would be more interesting for the same reason LFS is more interesting with rather than without a variety of cars: different lines and race strategies.
-I don't think the tires would be hard to setup. Like I said, it is really not rocket science to figure out a certain rubber's "personality". It wouldn't take that long either.
-There wouldn't necessarily be one superior tire for each race, if it was done right; and obviously this is a critical factor - which I think is not impossible to manage so that the difference is a smaller factor than who is driving.
-Tire selection would be fun to have in leagues.
I do agree it would be tricky to balance it all out, but I personaly doubt Scawen would have laid out the groundwork for it like this, unless he had seen a feasible plan. He might have changed his mind since, sure.. I agree it would probably better happen later, when there are less things in flux.
Remember we're just exchanging ideas here.
Last edited by Breizh, .
Everything you say would be aggravating sounds like fun to me.
Plenty of car and motorcycle reviews mention different testers acclimatize to and perform better on different tires... "The brand-L tires provided with the car just didn't work with the car, but somehow tester-F went faster than everyone else on those tires, and lapped as fast as everyone else did on aftermarket brand-M".
All Scawen has to do is scale the different brands' performance figures to equal proportions.
There's a good case to be made against different tire brands, but I don't think these are good reasons not to have different tires:
Why should they?
Just like we do now with the rest of the setup, what's the problem? Tires would be easier to figure out than the rest of the settings which are more inter-dependent.
Different tires would suit different people, which would in fact balance things out a little more, provided Scawen kept the tires well-balanced. If that isn't done right, I agree it's not a great idea. If it is, though, I just can't see why it would be all the trouble you say it would be.
My 2 c.
Plenty of car and motorcycle reviews mention different testers acclimatize to and perform better on different tires... "The brand-L tires provided with the car just didn't work with the car, but somehow tester-F went faster than everyone else on those tires, and lapped as fast as everyone else did on aftermarket brand-M".
All Scawen has to do is scale the different brands' performance figures to equal proportions.
There's a good case to be made against different tire brands, but I don't think these are good reasons not to have different tires:
Why should they?
Just like we do now with the rest of the setup, what's the problem? Tires would be easier to figure out than the rest of the settings which are more inter-dependent.
Different tires would suit different people, which would in fact balance things out a little more, provided Scawen kept the tires well-balanced. If that isn't done right, I agree it's not a great idea. If it is, though, I just can't see why it would be all the trouble you say it would be.
My 2 c.
I see what you mean, but I don't think it would be that troublesome.
You would learn the different rubbers' characters just like you do in reality. That's not hard, you just try it out and see.. that's pretty straightforward and logical. Tires are at the end of the car, setup-wise, so it wouldn't be as complicated to understand and remember what each brand does and doesn't. The physics for a given tire brand won't vary, so there won't be any surprises.
How complicated could it be? Scawen surely wouldn't make it so hard to understand that the common player couldn't easily figure it out with some track time... As it is, most players don't even bother figuring out setup-making what with so many variables (i.e. it's confusing), and that hasn't stopped LFS from being so fun and successful. Sites like Team Inferno's setupfield surely avoided that.
A certain setup would definitely work best with a certain tire brand, but it wouldn't necessarily not work at all with other brands.
And it would indeed be a good option to have one brand permanently selected, but that's not so hard to keep track of, just like you check your fuel load now. I'd say the present tire physics could be one of the brands, sitting right in the middle of the performance spread, with the other brands having better performance in some aspects at the cost of others.
You would learn the different rubbers' characters just like you do in reality. That's not hard, you just try it out and see.. that's pretty straightforward and logical. Tires are at the end of the car, setup-wise, so it wouldn't be as complicated to understand and remember what each brand does and doesn't. The physics for a given tire brand won't vary, so there won't be any surprises.
How complicated could it be? Scawen surely wouldn't make it so hard to understand that the common player couldn't easily figure it out with some track time... As it is, most players don't even bother figuring out setup-making what with so many variables (i.e. it's confusing), and that hasn't stopped LFS from being so fun and successful. Sites like Team Inferno's setupfield surely avoided that.
A certain setup would definitely work best with a certain tire brand, but it wouldn't necessarily not work at all with other brands.
And it would indeed be a good option to have one brand permanently selected, but that's not so hard to keep track of, just like you check your fuel load now. I'd say the present tire physics could be one of the brands, sitting right in the middle of the performance spread, with the other brands having better performance in some aspects at the cost of others.
deggis
The AI update and the (at least) minor improvements to aerodynamics were in one of the Test patch threads, if I remember correctly.
The tires update (not necessarily tire brands physics) is my speculation that it'd be included in what I remember Scawen saying that there would be physics updates besides aerodynamics in the next patch.. IIR, this too I read in a test patch thread, but I'm not sure if that was where he said so, now that I think about it.
Geeman, I am pretty sure I've seen Scawen himself say that this was the objective regarding tire brands. It is a good idea, since like I said real rubber works that way, e.g. tire manufacturers being major factors in World Superbike or MotoGP championships.
Why do you think it's a bad idea? Tire physics are obviously not easy to "solve", so spreading out across a few different tire "brands" all the possible tire physics solutions (in a programing sense) that each come short of "just right" in various characteristics would be a good solution.
I don't have links to Scawen's post saying so, but I'm sure he did say so, as I remembered then and there that I had suggested the same solution some time beforehand.
The tires update (not necessarily tire brands physics) is my speculation that it'd be included in what I remember Scawen saying that there would be physics updates besides aerodynamics in the next patch.. IIR, this too I read in a test patch thread, but I'm not sure if that was where he said so, now that I think about it.
Geeman, I am pretty sure I've seen Scawen himself say that this was the objective regarding tire brands. It is a good idea, since like I said real rubber works that way, e.g. tire manufacturers being major factors in World Superbike or MotoGP championships.
Why do you think it's a bad idea? Tire physics are obviously not easy to "solve", so spreading out across a few different tire "brands" all the possible tire physics solutions (in a programing sense) that each come short of "just right" in various characteristics would be a good solution.
I don't have links to Scawen's post saying so, but I'm sure he did say so, as I remembered then and there that I had suggested the same solution some time beforehand.
Last edited by Breizh, .
Real tires differ in performance from brand to brand, what's fake about featuring that in LFS?
The development roadmap is not something Scawen and co. have skimped on.
The development roadmap is not something Scawen and co. have skimped on.
There are a whole lot of different players making pretty varied setups for you to try. It may make a night and day difference to you: http://setupfield.teaminferno.hu. There are about 2 thousand setups in total on that one site.
The tire physics are on the slippery side of realistic, but all things considered, they are close to being the most accurate and definitely one of (if not the) most enjoyable physics and feedback of all racing sims. Most players agree, and a few pros, including Guy Smith more or less echo that impression.
The next patch will include aerodynamics, AI, and maybe tire updates. One of the ideas that's been floating around is to make different brands of tires, which kills two birds with one stone: performance variance between real rubber brands, and the tire physics shortcomings you've noticed.
The tire physics are on the slippery side of realistic, but all things considered, they are close to being the most accurate and definitely one of (if not the) most enjoyable physics and feedback of all racing sims. Most players agree, and a few pros, including Guy Smith more or less echo that impression.
The next patch will include aerodynamics, AI, and maybe tire updates. One of the ideas that's been floating around is to make different brands of tires, which kills two birds with one stone: performance variance between real rubber brands, and the tire physics shortcomings you've noticed.
The RB4 would be the one car to choose if a rally GTR model was made, so the FXO is the one that ought to get a GTR variant, unless redundancy isn't a problem.
The present 500HP GTR class has an FR, an F-AWD, and an RR. It would next need either a new drivetrain, or an already present drivetrain with significant differences, such as an FR that's builkier than the XRR, which is rather sharp and lightweight.. E.g. a big V8 FR like in Australian Supercars.
Otherwise, an MR would be the other obvious alternative, either a fantasy RAC-GTR, or one based on a new TBO car (which is less obvious, as there aren't many real MR TBO-performance cars), or a one-off GTR.
The TBO class has all three FR, FF, and AWD drivetrains covered, but neither MRs, nor anything else than four cylinder turbo engines. So, a new FF GTR in the 300HP range would have to be either in a class of its own, or be made to fit in the 200HP GTR class, which would mean it'd have to weigh right about 1000kg. A race-prepped FXO would fit the role, but it would be redundant unless the FXR was removed (counter productive).
Such a car and an RR GTR based on something like a VW Beetle (sorta clunky) or a Fiat 500 would really add to the UF1 and 200HP GTR classes.
Finishing the daydream, we'd also get a big (since two of the LRFs are already featherweights) GT FR (since we already have an MR, which would make even something as fun as a Ferrari or Lambo MR redundant) like an M3 or Corvette or an Australian V8 GT, and something different for the TBO class, like an MR rotary or V6 or something.
The present 500HP GTR class has an FR, an F-AWD, and an RR. It would next need either a new drivetrain, or an already present drivetrain with significant differences, such as an FR that's builkier than the XRR, which is rather sharp and lightweight.. E.g. a big V8 FR like in Australian Supercars.
Otherwise, an MR would be the other obvious alternative, either a fantasy RAC-GTR, or one based on a new TBO car (which is less obvious, as there aren't many real MR TBO-performance cars), or a one-off GTR.
The TBO class has all three FR, FF, and AWD drivetrains covered, but neither MRs, nor anything else than four cylinder turbo engines. So, a new FF GTR in the 300HP range would have to be either in a class of its own, or be made to fit in the 200HP GTR class, which would mean it'd have to weigh right about 1000kg. A race-prepped FXO would fit the role, but it would be redundant unless the FXR was removed (counter productive).
Such a car and an RR GTR based on something like a VW Beetle (sorta clunky) or a Fiat 500 would really add to the UF1 and 200HP GTR classes.
Finishing the daydream, we'd also get a big (since two of the LRFs are already featherweights) GT FR (since we already have an MR, which would make even something as fun as a Ferrari or Lambo MR redundant) like an M3 or Corvette or an Australian V8 GT, and something different for the TBO class, like an MR rotary or V6 or something.
Last edited by Breizh, .
Unrelated to what you're working on in this patch, but I just found a simple bug: creating a new skin setup in the garage, pitting out, and pitting back in will unselect the skin you just added to the list in the garage.
I did this in qualifying, and I think I had this bug before during a race too.. so it shouldn't be too hard to duplicate. If it isn't, I'll check back later and give more info.
I did this in qualifying, and I think I had this bug before during a race too.. so it shouldn't be too hard to duplicate. If it isn't, I'll check back later and give more info.
Using the V LFS.exe should suffice.
A GTR place as a redundant front engined AWD 4-cylinder turbo?
Fixing the turbo modeling (which we do need) won't make 4 cylinders any less common. We already have about half (off the top of my head) or more of all our cars using 4 cylinder engines, all but one of the GTRs using them... We don't have a big meaty V8 in a road car yet.
Make the MR GTR something else than a 4 cylinder and it's perfect.
You can pull your way out by steering back and forth, but it takes forever.
15 year old squeakers spiking your ears like on XBox live? No thanks... It wouldn't be a worthwhile addition to the devs bandwidth expenses.
"Mostly good results" with a traceroute? What does that mean? How's the packet loss etc?
If LFS always lags, without exception, then it is more likely your computer itself that's causing it. Try using another computer (that has no spyware, or too many resource hogs or other crap) on the same internet line.
If LFS always lags, without exception, then it is more likely your computer itself that's causing it. Try using another computer (that has no spyware, or too many resource hogs or other crap) on the same internet line.
Hehe.. I guess that settles it.
The last Tweak version doesn't work for Demo players.
The version before that has tons of tweaks, which you can all find by searching in the Unofficial mods forum.
LFS version X doesn't have a Tweak made for it yet, and W never had one.
The version before that has tons of tweaks, which you can all find by searching in the Unofficial mods forum.
LFS version X doesn't have a Tweak made for it yet, and W never had one.
Mazda's three rotor 20B engine makes, in stock form... wait for it... no torque at all:
300HP and 300lb/ft.. Torque-less engines, indeed.
The two rotor 13B-REW can do 255HP (or about 300HP in the last production years it seems) and 195lb/ft in stock form, which is about on par with present LFS cars:
There's already cars in LFS that are pretty wheezy in the low RPM ranges, and no one is complaining about them to the point of questioning if they ought to even be in the game, e.g. the slow turbo GTRs or RAC.
Almost no one complains that the LX4 is slow because of it's high reving qualities either. It's part of its character and makes the carset less bland.
300HP and 300lb/ft.. Torque-less engines, indeed.
The two rotor 13B-REW can do 255HP (or about 300HP in the last production years it seems) and 195lb/ft in stock form, which is about on par with present LFS cars:
car HP/ton TQ/ton
20B-XRT 245 245
FZ5 265 208
FXO 209 197
XRT 204 195
XRT 193 192 (with online handicap)
FD-RX7 215 191 (assuming 275HP 245lb/ft)
RB4 197 190
FXO 187 180 (with online handicap)
RAC 311 150
LX6 358 107
LX4 275 84
There's already cars in LFS that are pretty wheezy in the low RPM ranges, and no one is complaining about them to the point of questioning if they ought to even be in the game, e.g. the slow turbo GTRs or RAC.
Almost no one complains that the LX4 is slow because of it's high reving qualities either. It's part of its character and makes the carset less bland.
Last edited by Breizh, .
Are the drivers installed? Is it calibrated in windows and LFS?
Sorry for the misunderstanding, the problem I'm refering to is an input lag problem.
No custom graphics used. I will have a new box to test this with soon and will report then..
No custom graphics used. I will have a new box to test this with soon and will report then..
Just updated to X and it is still there, still the same behavior and still the same alt-tab fix.
Other occurences:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=18578
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=20728
And other players online mentionning the same problem, same fix.
Is there a flush/reload memory /command in LFS?
Other occurences:
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=18578
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=20728
And other players online mentionning the same problem, same fix.
Is there a flush/reload memory /command in LFS?
Some things get better as they age... but otherwise there's the LRFs, the F1 and a few others.
Disregard my post. I hadn't actually thought about it, 20kg is nothing..
Not dividing the community is a better rule of thumb than not applying class balancing for 20kg's worth of extra speed in servers not using the full TBO class.
Not dividing the community is a better rule of thumb than not applying class balancing for 20kg's worth of extra speed in servers not using the full TBO class.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG