I apologise if i wasn't very clear about the height of the curb - I meant 20-25cm above the road/track level. The angle relative to the track looks to be about 30-40 degrees, which is fairly steep. If it was vertical, the wheel would be ripped off, no question.
Regarding the BMW video, IIRC when rehersing for the DB9 roll stunt in Casino Royale (James Bond) they were only using a ~30cm high ramp (if that) at about 10 degrees or so. To get it to roll, they turned into the ramp hard to generate lateral-G which makes it much easier to roll. The DB9 has a much lower centre of gravity and is lighter than the BMW, but they still managed to get a roll by exploiting latteral-G.
As another similar example, there are a few videos floating around youtube, where road cars have rolled by hitting a normal curb (12cm or so) at low speeds of around 10-15km/h.
A UK TV show - Fifth Gear I believe - rolled a BMW just by sliding it in the right way on a dry skid-pan.
Bearing in mind the lateral-g involved in the FBM in the replay (curb example only, I havn't seen the other one) of about 2g (twice that of what most road cars can manage), the height and angle of the curb and as such the forces involved, the high-ish ride height of the blackwood setup and the fact that you don't get a huge amount of downforce at ~90km/h, I don't think we can easily say categorically that it would be impossible to roll an FBM in the same circumstances in RL. It may or may not be possible, but IMO it could go either way. Had you steered into the slide, it wouldn't have rolled.
I've also just noticed that at exactly the same time you lifted off the power, the speed of the roll dramatically increased. This could have been caused by a change of engine torque on the chassis and/or changes in rear wheelspeed and/or the rear wheel slipping less and gaining grip. Had you kept on the power it might just have not rolled.
I'm not saying the physics involved in LFS are perfect, but I don't think we can conclude for certain that they are significantly wrong in this case either.
Regarding the BMW video, IIRC when rehersing for the DB9 roll stunt in Casino Royale (James Bond) they were only using a ~30cm high ramp (if that) at about 10 degrees or so. To get it to roll, they turned into the ramp hard to generate lateral-G which makes it much easier to roll. The DB9 has a much lower centre of gravity and is lighter than the BMW, but they still managed to get a roll by exploiting latteral-G.
As another similar example, there are a few videos floating around youtube, where road cars have rolled by hitting a normal curb (12cm or so) at low speeds of around 10-15km/h.
A UK TV show - Fifth Gear I believe - rolled a BMW just by sliding it in the right way on a dry skid-pan.
Bearing in mind the lateral-g involved in the FBM in the replay (curb example only, I havn't seen the other one) of about 2g (twice that of what most road cars can manage), the height and angle of the curb and as such the forces involved, the high-ish ride height of the blackwood setup and the fact that you don't get a huge amount of downforce at ~90km/h, I don't think we can easily say categorically that it would be impossible to roll an FBM in the same circumstances in RL. It may or may not be possible, but IMO it could go either way. Had you steered into the slide, it wouldn't have rolled.
I've also just noticed that at exactly the same time you lifted off the power, the speed of the roll dramatically increased. This could have been caused by a change of engine torque on the chassis and/or changes in rear wheelspeed and/or the rear wheel slipping less and gaining grip. Had you kept on the power it might just have not rolled.
I'm not saying the physics involved in LFS are perfect, but I don't think we can conclude for certain that they are significantly wrong in this case either.
Looking from the best angle I can from shift+u, the final corner curb is about 20cm or so at its top. A few real racetracks have similar curbs, so it's not that out of the ordinary.
I've seen SS cars get launched on another's tyre and not sustain any major damage (usually will break something though) and the forces involved there would be higher than bouncing off a curb at a guess, so not sustaining damage on that curb wouldn't be out of the question. At that kind of speed I wouldn't have thought it impossible to roll a car hitting a similar curb in RL, especially with the amount of lateral force going on. I've seen touring cars almost roll on shallower curbs, although it's usually corrected by the driver so they don't actually roll all the way.
As far as loss of downforce and breakable wings are concerned, Scawen has said that breakable wings are in the works for S2 to get out of alpha, so I would assume loss of downforce will go along with that.
I've seen SS cars get launched on another's tyre and not sustain any major damage (usually will break something though) and the forces involved there would be higher than bouncing off a curb at a guess, so not sustaining damage on that curb wouldn't be out of the question. At that kind of speed I wouldn't have thought it impossible to roll a car hitting a similar curb in RL, especially with the amount of lateral force going on. I've seen touring cars almost roll on shallower curbs, although it's usually corrected by the driver so they don't actually roll all the way.
As far as loss of downforce and breakable wings are concerned, Scawen has said that breakable wings are in the works for S2 to get out of alpha, so I would assume loss of downforce will go along with that.
I've seen a fair few reports of crashes similar to this (ie ntdll.dll)
To clarify, several clients can crash at the same time with the same error. The server does not crash or throw any errors as far as I'm aware.
We haven't noticed any patterns that may reproduce it yet.
To clarify, several clients can crash at the same time with the same error. The server does not crash or throw any errors as far as I'm aware.
We haven't noticed any patterns that may reproduce it yet.
Blackwood and the demo cars don't lend themselves brilliantly to lift off oversteer, but it's definitely there.
Setup makes quite a difference, and as I tend to have an oversteery setup in the FWD cars, I often use lift-off oversteer to get round the final left-hander in BL.
Some other tracks and other cars (with the right setup) have more pronounced lift-off oversteer, but it depends on quite a few factors.
Setup makes quite a difference, and as I tend to have an oversteery setup in the FWD cars, I often use lift-off oversteer to get round the final left-hander in BL.
Some other tracks and other cars (with the right setup) have more pronounced lift-off oversteer, but it depends on quite a few factors.
FYI I have read the entire thread and it was quite a while before the best or fastest way round the corner was mentioned. Most of the discussion has been about what is and isn't done and what can and can't be done. Your comments referencing damage done to the cars by people you know, cars needing to be set up specifically to be able to drift etc that, in quantity at least, outweigh any reference to speed make it sound like you are arguing what can and can't be done. This in particular comes to mind:
My (and tristan's from what I understand) point was that you do have a chance to correct, simple as. There was no reference made in context to whether it's a good way to drive round a corner, but the fact is that no-one is capable of entering every corner correctly every time.
The very best racing drivers can set up more or less for a corner before entering, fine, but due to imperfections in the human race and chaos theory it is very very rare for anyone to make a corner on the limit without correcting in some way or another. Even the smoothest drivers are correcting and reacting all the time.
Anywho, now I understand what you thought you were arguing about rather than what you were actually saying, I'll leave you to it.
No, but he does get very out of shape sometimes, and usually manages to correct it.
Just because they 'ran out of talent' or didn't have room to correct doesn't mean it's impossible to save something if the car looses grip.
You mentioned curbing earlier - was that how this damaged was caused? Not every slide or loss of control has a curb jump out and hit you. Start sliding around in the old SO before the curbs got protected by armco and you'll get the same situation.
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about realistic (or unrealistic) responses to realistic driver inputs and situations. I didn't realise it was about the fact that everybody always drives perfectly and if perfect control is lost it's always the fault of the car and, of course, that a car sustains damage every time control is lost.
And I knew the FWD thing would be the response as well.
Anywho, ever watch Top Gear? Every time a RWD car (and most 4WDs) is tested, they drift it.
Ever seen Lewis Hamilton (or most other F1 drivers) correct a slide mid corner?
A car does not need to be modified to drift it, or to be able to catch a slide.
Anywho, ever watch Top Gear? Every time a RWD car (and most 4WDs) is tested, they drift it.
Ever seen Lewis Hamilton (or most other F1 drivers) correct a slide mid corner?
A car does not need to be modified to drift it, or to be able to catch a slide.
I'll just leave this here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPCGnkApnDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPCGnkApnDU
I think you're over-estimating the distances involved here
200ft is A Long Way. Based on average ceiling heights (in the UK at least - ~10ft) 200ft would mean the height of a 20 storey building.
/pedanticism
802.11g wireless is generally capable of going up to 100ft line-of-sight. Put a wall/floor/cardboard box/person in the way and it's going to reduce that, especially if it's made of something substantial.
For 3 storeys, I'd recommend using Cat5e or power over Ethernet even for only browsing the web for any amount of time. As for gaming, that kind of distance is going to cause a lot of problems over WiFi.
The n spec can handle longer range and higher speeds, but is still susceptible to all the kinds of interference and the affects associated with it as mentioned in this thread.
If you have to use WiFi over that distance indoors I'd recommend getting a PCI card and router that allow you to change the antennae and buy some high gain antennae for both.
You're probably better off using an InSim app with frequent MCI(?) packets, as this will accurately report actual velocity.
You can also add the line
/insim 29999
to lfs/data/script/autoexec.lfs I believe
(or maybe not - I dunno if scripting works in the demo)
edit: this will only work on the client though.
/insim 29999
to lfs/data/script/autoexec.lfs I believe
(or maybe not - I dunno if scripting works in the demo)
edit: this will only work on the client though.
Legal torrents - especially those that contain files in their final state, ie .iso .exe etc - are often quite well seeded and thus are usually quite fast.
Just take a look at the more popular linux distributions like knoppix* where most internet connections can be maxed out assuming your torrent settings are correct. I saw speeds over 50MByte/s once.
A lot of games websites and publishers have started using various styles of peer-to-peer similar to bittorrent to reduce load on their servers when distributing patches and other downloads.
For the vast majority of people this won't affect the end users' "bandwidth" caps as they usually only count downloads and not uploads. I've heard of one ISP in Japan and maybe a couple in Australia that impose any kind of cap on uploads. In the case of the ISP in Japan, it was on a 100Mbit (possibly even 1Gbit) symmetrical connection and that upload limit was set at 100 or 200GBytes to discourage people on home connections starting file hosting websites.
* (a side note - I believe I'm right in saying that bittorrent was originally designed to distribute linux distros and larger FOSS applications in the days before broadband proliferation)
Just take a look at the more popular linux distributions like knoppix* where most internet connections can be maxed out assuming your torrent settings are correct. I saw speeds over 50MByte/s once.
A lot of games websites and publishers have started using various styles of peer-to-peer similar to bittorrent to reduce load on their servers when distributing patches and other downloads.
For the vast majority of people this won't affect the end users' "bandwidth" caps as they usually only count downloads and not uploads. I've heard of one ISP in Japan and maybe a couple in Australia that impose any kind of cap on uploads. In the case of the ISP in Japan, it was on a 100Mbit (possibly even 1Gbit) symmetrical connection and that upload limit was set at 100 or 200GBytes to discourage people on home connections starting file hosting websites.
* (a side note - I believe I'm right in saying that bittorrent was originally designed to distribute linux distros and larger FOSS applications in the days before broadband proliferation)
LFS doesn't use http (port 80) at all afaik.
Not entirely sure how W7/vista test for internet access, but I reckon they don't use http either.
If the proxy is only allowing requests on port 80, that's why you're having problems
Not entirely sure how W7/vista test for internet access, but I reckon they don't use http either.
If the proxy is only allowing requests on port 80, that's why you're having problems
For me, both windows and wine are less than 0.1fps different between standard and test with 20 AIs (it only drew shadows for about 17 of them, presumably because of distance), standard being very slightly higher.
Ubuntu 9.04 2.6.28-13 (32bit)
Wine 1.1.25
fglrx 2:8.620
11.5fps
16xAF (AA not detected?, haze off)
Vista sp2 (64bit)
Catalyst 9.5
58.8fps
8xAA 16xAF
Phenom II 955
HD 4890
4GB DDR3
1440x900 FS
SO Town Course
Ubuntu 9.04 2.6.28-13 (32bit)
Wine 1.1.25
fglrx 2:8.620
11.5fps
16xAF (AA not detected?, haze off)
Vista sp2 (64bit)
Catalyst 9.5
58.8fps
8xAA 16xAF
Phenom II 955
HD 4890
4GB DDR3
1440x900 FS
SO Town Course
It's possible that it's caused by XP not handling the threads very well on a system with more cores or a different architecture than before - particularly as LFS is a fairly CPU intensive multi-threaded (but not parallel threaded) program. LFS is more CPU intensive than most games and is usually CPU limited rather than graphics limited.
Vista and especially W7 are programmed with multi-core and modern architectures in mind and usually perform better with such programs as LFS.
Off topic:
On that subject, take a look at >> this, <<especially all the comments that praise it
Vista and especially W7 are programmed with multi-core and modern architectures in mind and usually perform better with such programs as LFS.
Off topic:
On that subject, take a look at >> this, <<especially all the comments that praise it
Ubuntu 9.04 2.6.28-13
Wine 1.1.25
HD4890 fglrx 2:8.620
All shadows are fine - low res, high res both test and normal.
Wine 1.1.25
HD4890 fglrx 2:8.620
All shadows are fine - low res, high res both test and normal.
AFAIK, LFS does not do any parallel processing. When affinity is set to several cores, it shows usage on more than one core because (I think) lfs.exe calls external modules/system calls which the OS assigns to a different core. lfs.exe can't use more of its core because it is 'paused' when the external calls are running.
I have a feeling that LFS physics will rarely need to use a full core on a Phenom II - on my pc (phenomII X4 955), lfs.exe rarely uses more than about 10-18% total CPU. Strangely, it seems to be at 250.0fps nearly all the time in windowed mode - there's probably a (sensible) software limit somewhere.
I have a feeling that LFS physics will rarely need to use a full core on a Phenom II - on my pc (phenomII X4 955), lfs.exe rarely uses more than about 10-18% total CPU. Strangely, it seems to be at 250.0fps nearly all the time in windowed mode - there's probably a (sensible) software limit somewhere.
DEVIL 007:
IIRC the outer loop of the LFS physics engine runs at 100Hz. Whether that has much to do with it I'm not sure, but anything above that and LFS is just drawing duplicate frames and stressing the graphics more.
If you set affinity to a single core, what % of that core is it using? If affinity is set to all cores, what overall % CPU is LFS using? This should help us determine if it's the CPU being the limiting factor, or something else.
IIRC the outer loop of the LFS physics engine runs at 100Hz. Whether that has much to do with it I'm not sure, but anything above that and LFS is just drawing duplicate frames and stressing the graphics more.
If you set affinity to a single core, what % of that core is it using? If affinity is set to all cores, what overall % CPU is LFS using? This should help us determine if it's the CPU being the limiting factor, or something else.
Devil 007: Are you experiencing poor framerates with CnQ enabled or is it good and steady like rc10racer?
If your CPU is capable of running LFS with no problems in a low power mode, that's a good thing as it's saving money. If that's the case, your CPU is clearly too powerful for LFS
If your CPU is capable of running LFS with no problems in a low power mode, that's a good thing as it's saving money. If that's the case, your CPU is clearly too powerful for LFS
You can alter/replace textures and sounds as much as you like (jpg, dds, raw [skies/reflections iirc], wav, ogg etc) as they do not affect gameplay physics in any way.
Things that modify physics including tuning, the shape of cars/objects, the behaviour of cars/objects are a no-no online (except possibly in private servers where everyone has the same mods).
As for OutGauge, I think there are one or two OutGauge relays about that allow you to use multiple OutGauge programs at the same time. I can't think of any specifically off the top of my head, but take a look in the programmers forum.
And MPEG is indeed a range of sound/video compression/container formats...
Things that modify physics including tuning, the shape of cars/objects, the behaviour of cars/objects are a no-no online (except possibly in private servers where everyone has the same mods).
As for OutGauge, I think there are one or two OutGauge relays about that allow you to use multiple OutGauge programs at the same time. I can't think of any specifically off the top of my head, but take a look in the programmers forum.
And MPEG is indeed a range of sound/video compression/container formats...
In my experience of the (a?) slowdown issue (I've previously mentioned it in this thread) there was no HDD activity at the time.
I got a slowdown to IIRC 10-15fps at the same two places in AS5, every time I drove through or stopped at those areas.
The issue only happened on one of my systems (running part of the Revolution pack) only in Z13, only in multiplayer.
I've recently re-installed windows on that system, so I will test it again with various combinations of clean/backup installs of LFS.
Regarding the crash above, I got that for the first time last night. No idea if it's reproducible at this time. Apparently ntdll.dll crashes are usually caused by faulty applications or drivers, although I have no way of knowing which is to blame.
Faulting application LFS.exe, version 0.0.0.0, time stamp 0x4a03f459, faulting module ntdll.dll, version 6.0.6002.18005, time stamp 0x49e03824, exception code 0xc0000721, fault offset 0x0006a805, process id 0x116c, application start time 0x01c9ff59958edd70.
I got a slowdown to IIRC 10-15fps at the same two places in AS5, every time I drove through or stopped at those areas.
The issue only happened on one of my systems (running part of the Revolution pack) only in Z13, only in multiplayer.
I've recently re-installed windows on that system, so I will test it again with various combinations of clean/backup installs of LFS.
Regarding the crash above, I got that for the first time last night. No idea if it's reproducible at this time. Apparently ntdll.dll crashes are usually caused by faulty applications or drivers, although I have no way of knowing which is to blame.
Faulting application LFS.exe, version 0.0.0.0, time stamp 0x4a03f459, faulting module ntdll.dll, version 6.0.6002.18005, time stamp 0x49e03824, exception code 0xc0000721, fault offset 0x0006a805, process id 0x116c, application start time 0x01c9ff59958edd70.
Which, in the body style that looks vaguely like the UF (2004-present), was never made as a 3 door, only 5 door. Lets call it a combination of the two, shall we
Shock, horror, I think I might have actually found a bug :jawdrop:
I don't *think* this has been mentioned before, I certainly can't remember reading about it anywhere.
The garage exit direction arrow doesn't show when leaving the pit garage in the training sessions.
I don't *think* this has been mentioned before, I certainly can't remember reading about it anywhere.
The garage exit direction arrow doesn't show when leaving the pit garage in the training sessions.
Perhaps the ABS discussion should move to the ABS spin-off thread
Regarding real cars we have (in no particular order)
BF1 FBM MRT VWS RAC
The rest of the cars are based on real cars (some more loosely than others)
XR - Mitsubishi Starion
XF - Citroen AX
UF - Classic Mini
FZ - Porsche 911 (almost identical in specs to a specific version)
LX - Caterham
FX - Opel/Vauxhall Astra Coupe
RB4 - probably the hardest to match, general consensus is a combination of Toyota Celica/Toyota Supra/Mitsubishi Eclipse/Mitsubishi 3000GT
The other SS cars are based on real championships, IIRC F3000 and something else - It says exactly which ones in the forum somewhere
/off topic
Regarding real cars we have (in no particular order)
BF1 FBM MRT VWS RAC
The rest of the cars are based on real cars (some more loosely than others)
XR - Mitsubishi Starion
XF - Citroen AX
UF - Classic Mini
FZ - Porsche 911 (almost identical in specs to a specific version)
LX - Caterham
FX - Opel/Vauxhall Astra Coupe
RB4 - probably the hardest to match, general consensus is a combination of Toyota Celica/Toyota Supra/Mitsubishi Eclipse/Mitsubishi 3000GT
The other SS cars are based on real championships, IIRC F3000 and something else - It says exactly which ones in the forum somewhere
/off topic
Locked diff is probably the cause. AFAIK, LFS, as with most ABS systems, compares the speed of the wheels to work out if they're locked or not. If the front and rear diffs are locked, its suddenly lost 2 points of comparison - the only difference in speed will be front and rear wheels. If the front and rear axles lock at the same time (entirely possible) the ABS is likely to get confused and assume the car is stationary.
Is the centre diff locked or high torque as well? If so that'll make it even worse.
Whether this is a bug/error or not is, perhaps, debatable. I doubt there would be a problem with a more realistic setup.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG