:bowdown::bowdown::headbang::bowdown::headbang::bowdown::headbang::bowdown::headbang::bowdown::bowdown:
Nice work Dave. Why didn't you publish that BEFORE our race?
I had to lift for most of those corners and I was using your set.
Nice work Dave. Why didn't you publish that BEFORE our race?
I had to lift for most of those corners and I was using your set.
Yep, it can be faster depending on the driver and what they are used to, especially a driver that is always losing the back end. But it is also completely unrealistic.
Do what you want, I am not trying to tell you to change it.
Personally, I find the realistic steering ranges better to drive for the most part because it gives you finer control of the steering. You have to work harder and be faster if you lose the back end, but I also find you don't lose the back end as ofter too.
Your Logitech profiler FF settings might be goofy too. I set mine at 65% force and turn off the other effects features and the spring. I have even gone as far to replace all the profiler button functionality with LFS scripts that I put together so I can turn off the profiler completely. I think the FF in LFS works much better now and I am feeling more subtle FF changes than I could before.
Last edited by Hallen, .
It is a lot more physically difficult in the real car, especially something like the FBM. Because you are being inundated with sounds, smells, forces, fear, everything from the real world, it is very hard for a one time drive to really be able to say definitively, "yeah, that was like LFS". It takes a while to start noticing the more subtle things the car does under loads. Once you get used to the real, physical environment and all those other inputs (sound, fear, etc), then you can really start the analysis (as long as you aren't too tired by then)
. Does the Challenge allow the drivers to do their own setups? If it does, then I would expect that most will say the sim doesn't drive like the real car. The setup has so much to do with the car feel that it will override any of the physics behaviors. For example, the drivers will complain that the real car understeers a lot more than LFS, or that LFS lets you put the power down too quickly/easily compared to the real car. Those things can be greatly changed with some pretty small setup changes.
And Scawen, I wouldn't doubt you are better in the real car than in the sim. I would suspect most people would be.
Werd!
Working in software for the last 15 years, those are words to live by.
Then you have a ton of leagues to choose from. Pick your poison and sign up. It is not a life-long commitment and you don't need an invite for most of the leagues. It is not the same as a team. Check the leagues section of the forum.
League racing is the best if you want clean and competitive racing.
Isn't it cool that we can argue like this about virtual cars? I think it is a testament to the quality of LFS.
I picked the XRR because I have a lot of experience with it but have now switched to the FZR for the latest series.
With good setups, the FZR is a joy to drive. It handles very well and has tons of linear power. It will want to step out on you under power and it can be hard to catch once it does step out. However, throttle modulation works nicely and the car has a good range of settings that allow you to turn in nicely and still not have too much oversteer.
The XRR has the problem of turbo lag that makes it difficult to get the power down out of corners. The power kicks in just when you don't need it too and around you go.
The setup on it is difficult because of the lack of front end grip. The car can be setup well, but it is harder to do. You always have to compromise something in order to get what you need where with the FXR, you can usually remove bad habits without compromising too much. Part of this is because of the lack of front downforce on the XRR. You try and improve high speed handling by adding rear downforce, but then the front washes out, even at the maximum downforce setting. You have to lower rear downforce which then makes the car more squirrely in the corners. You compensate by upping the mechanical grip for the rear, but then you push like mad in the slow corners. It is a tough balance.
With good setups, the FZR is a joy to drive. It handles very well and has tons of linear power. It will want to step out on you under power and it can be hard to catch once it does step out. However, throttle modulation works nicely and the car has a good range of settings that allow you to turn in nicely and still not have too much oversteer.
The XRR has the problem of turbo lag that makes it difficult to get the power down out of corners. The power kicks in just when you don't need it too and around you go.
The setup on it is difficult because of the lack of front end grip. The car can be setup well, but it is harder to do. You always have to compromise something in order to get what you need where with the FXR, you can usually remove bad habits without compromising too much. Part of this is because of the lack of front downforce on the XRR. You try and improve high speed handling by adding rear downforce, but then the front washes out, even at the maximum downforce setting. You have to lower rear downforce which then makes the car more squirrely in the corners. You compensate by upping the mechanical grip for the rear, but then you push like mad in the slow corners. It is a tough balance.
I think that real GTR cars like in the ALMS have some front adjustability, but not a lot.
What they can do is change the entire front assembly to use a different splitter and winglet arrangement. The vents on top of the wheels have an effect with the downforce so you will see different variations of those too. Changing the nose on these cars does not take very long, but it is something that you rarely see them do on a pit stop. It is more something that is done during the test sessions prior to a race. On the 12 and 24 hours races, you will sometimes see them change the nose for different conditions.
What they can do is change the entire front assembly to use a different splitter and winglet arrangement. The vents on top of the wheels have an effect with the downforce so you will see different variations of those too. Changing the nose on these cars does not take very long, but it is something that you rarely see them do on a pit stop. It is more something that is done during the test sessions prior to a race. On the 12 and 24 hours races, you will sometimes see them change the nose for different conditions.
That is a very hard thing to do. If you get a real racer to do it, chances are they won't relate well to the sim environment. They won't really be able to compare because they are lacking g forces and everything else that comes with a real car.
If you get a sim guy to do it, unless they are really gifted, they won't be able to push the real car to the limit for a long time. And even if they do, they won't be able to provide you with much usable feedback.
I think the best tactic is to do what Scawen is doing. Model the physics as best you can, test the heck out of it, and then balance the cars using actual physical characteristics. I think you will get better results that way than doing testing in the real cars (in general).
lol, well, it is well known that Porsche drivers use goofy lines into corners. There is the "racing line" and the "Porsche Line".
ALMS Porsche GT2 RSR Specs
If you ever wanted to compare an ALMS (or LMS or Le Mans) GT2 car to the GTR class cars, here is some decent data on the 2008 model.
The thing I found interesting was the differential lock. They list it at 45/65 percent. If they are noting Lock/Coast like LFS does, it is an interesting split. Of course I don't know what the normal notation is for coast vs lock so I could have it backwards.
http://www.planetlemans.com/20 ... uces-its-2008-gt2-weapon/
The thing I found interesting was the differential lock. They list it at 45/65 percent. If they are noting Lock/Coast like LFS does, it is an interesting split. Of course I don't know what the normal notation is for coast vs lock so I could have it backwards.
http://www.planetlemans.com/20 ... uces-its-2008-gt2-weapon/
Wow, that is interesting. The bump and rebound have about the same rates.
With the street dampers I have been looking at, bump is usually much lower than rebound. Rebound is usually 2x or more than bump. Which matches up with most of the stuff I have seen written about suspension setups.
Of course the dp1 is a special little car
.Is there such a thing as motion ratio for the dampers like there is for the springs? I wouldn't think so, but thought I would ask.
One of the things that has been bugging me about LFS and as a result, VHPA is the values used for the damping rate. From what I have see (at least here in the US) is that dampers are rated at .52m/s or 20in/sec.
It is virtually impossible to get these values converted over to 1m/s. Well, it wouldn't be so bad if the damping rate were linear, but again, in most cases it doesn't seem to be. I only have experience with road going dampers though, so it might not be true for race dampers.
The modern dampers I am familiar with are very progressive similar to a second order differential equation where the rate of damping reduces as the rate of motion increases. The highest rate of change is between 0 and .3m/s. After that, the slope drops off considerably and becomes more linear.
So, if you get a value from a damper manufacturer, say Bilstein, they will give it to you at .52m/s and it will be something like 2000n. You can't really just double it to get the proper m/s value and even if that did match up, it wouldn't work for slower rates, the values would be much too low.
Anyway, I don't know of a way around this.
But it would be nice to either a) allow entry at different rates and then offer an approximation for variable rate dampers. and b) find out exactly what Scawen does to calculate damper values given a single spot value at 1m/s (I think we all assume it is just linear now).
If we knew exactly, then you could put in values that would give you the correct damping at the slower rates (which are the most important) and would probably be a bit high for the faster rates (assuming that Scawen takes that into account, which I am sure he does).
It is virtually impossible to get these values converted over to 1m/s. Well, it wouldn't be so bad if the damping rate were linear, but again, in most cases it doesn't seem to be. I only have experience with road going dampers though, so it might not be true for race dampers.
The modern dampers I am familiar with are very progressive similar to a second order differential equation where the rate of damping reduces as the rate of motion increases. The highest rate of change is between 0 and .3m/s. After that, the slope drops off considerably and becomes more linear.
So, if you get a value from a damper manufacturer, say Bilstein, they will give it to you at .52m/s and it will be something like 2000n. You can't really just double it to get the proper m/s value and even if that did match up, it wouldn't work for slower rates, the values would be much too low.
Anyway, I don't know of a way around this.
But it would be nice to either a) allow entry at different rates and then offer an approximation for variable rate dampers. and b) find out exactly what Scawen does to calculate damper values given a single spot value at 1m/s (I think we all assume it is just linear now).
If we knew exactly, then you could put in values that would give you the correct damping at the slower rates (which are the most important) and would probably be a bit high for the faster rates (assuming that Scawen takes that into account, which I am sure he does).
The bridge is gone now. The put a tunnel under the track. The corner is basically the same though. It makes for better fan viewing without the bridge being there.
Reference to PIR.
I would of course vote for PIR because it is my home track and I would love to be able to practice in LFS for it.
But, it would be a bit boring for Sim racing. There is no elevation changes at all.
If Scawen did want to do something like that, I am sure I could help because I know a lot of people involved with the track up there. It is a city owned track so licensing probably wouldn't be a problem.
It is a very fun track to drive in real life though and it is a proper road course. It was originally built off of the city streets of a town called Vanport that was destroyed by a flood. www.griplimit.net for some other video of the track.
If you have r-Factor, there is a pretty good version of it out called Vanport International.
My vote would also go for Road America, a very, very fun track to drive. Super fast corners, medium speed corners, slow corners, elevation changes, etc. VIR would be great too. There are also a ton of club tracks that are being built here in the US that would be great ideas too. Most of them have tons of different combinations.
I think however, that until we come up with a system for the community to provide quality tracks, that Eric should continue to concentrate on fantasy tracks that set a certain theme. Like Fern Bay club tracks, Aston F1 style tracks, etc.
What the heck were you doing drinking coffee when you were trying to go out for your first drive? There are no points for style.
Be careful out there
Man, this will be nice for marshaling races. Especially if we can do some of the admin commands for DT penalties, etc.
Nice work!
Nice work!
lol, yeah, you sure don't see many 1 liter cars here in the US, do you? You see plenty on motorcycles though
I guess that small of an engine moving that much weight (relatively speaking) would force you into a high torque at low rev engine. Otherwise, you would be tac'ing out just to get the car moving.
No, at 5500rpm for peak hp if you want to be exact.
The point is, torque higher than hp does not = diesel, nor does a low reving engine.
My BMW 323i inline 6 cylinder has 170hp and 181ft/lbs of torque and I guarantee you it is not a diesel.
I have been meaning to ask this before:
Bob, how do you come up with the torque curves for LFS cars? You can't do it with just the peak stated values can you?
I have been meaning to ask this before:
Bob, how do you come up with the torque curves for LFS cars? You can't do it with just the peak stated values can you?
Thanks again Bob for this wonderful tool.
Have you given in thought to a combined setup view that shows the combined effects of your spring, anti-roll bar, and damper settings? Or does that not make sense?
Another thought is the effects of differential settings on handling, under steer and over steer when cornering.
Have you given in thought to a combined setup view that shows the combined effects of your spring, anti-roll bar, and damper settings? Or does that not make sense?
Another thought is the effects of differential settings on handling, under steer and over steer when cornering.
You're a girl, aren't you?
A guy would have a list
1) Water
2) Shade
3) Sex
4) Sleep
5) Sex
6) Making a signal fire
7) Sex
8) Sleep
9) What's on cable tonight?
10) Sex
So you see, sex is not the last thing we would worry about. It isn't the first in that situation, but certainly not the last... well, it is the last thing too in the list, but you get the point.
lol, I can just see Tristan when he is 70 years old. Cussing about those danged memory implants..."Back in my day, people remembered things for real, with their own brain cells. None of this mamby pamby hardware stuff. Real men work hard to memorize things and keep them in their own danged brain cells. Hell, we even had to look up phone numbers on our cell phones we couldn't just blink an eye and pull it out of our internal SD card."
Face it Tristan, some of this is just technology moving forward. It is not a grand conspiracy to deprive you of the pleasure of shifting. The whole point is to give the driver control over the equipment. If you can have complete control without a whole lot of extraneous actions, then it is generally better. Will shifting take less skill... probably. Will that now freed up concentration and time translate into other skills that allow you to go faster? Probably.
(btw, I much prefer the manual method myself. It is just fun. But it is not the way of the future and there are "better" things coming)
Don't worry so much about keeping the negative camber that low. It is very common for a production based race car to use -3.0° camber on the front tires.
I find that with reasonable power locking and very low coast locking and no preload, there is too much difference in reaction to throttle between the two states. In other words, I coast into a corner and the car tucks. You have to be ready with throttle to counteract the oversteer. But, when you get on the power, the higher power locking causes understeer... which is what you want to a degree. But it just doesn't feel balanced. There is too much difference between coast and power locking making the car twitchy. A steady state of turn in or track out is never achieved. It is easily fixed by bumping up the coast lock a bit and adding a touch of preload.
This probably has more to do with my driving style than a deficiency in the setups though. The nice thing about those sets is that you can really feel the difference in the differential settings, even when you are only making small changes. I was able to get the LX6 set to balance nicely for my driving style with just a couple of minor changes to the diff settings. This is one of those things that really highlights just how good LFS physics and car models are.
You would be surprised at some of the sudden movements.
If I understand what you mean by a flybar, then modern helicopters don't use them because of the number of rotors in the system and because of hydraulics used move the surfaces. But, one the original production helicopters, the Hiller H-23, used a separate wing setup on a bar connected to the control system to affect the rotor attitude.
Most modern helicopters used in the military have some form of heading hold functionality. I know the Blackhawk does. It makes it easier to hold a hover. The Navy uses features like this plus hover altitude hold for hoist operations.
All turbine helicopters use an automated fuel control system to manage engine RPM and rotor RPM (both are in vastly different ranges of course, but they must remain constant. Then engine won't wind down until you shut it off unlike what you hear in a lot of movies)
Even the current reciprocating engined Robinson R22 uses a pretty good power management system that greatly relieved the pilot of manual throttle control for the most part.
Yes, there are. There is a full gamut of stabilization systems as well as fully coupled navigation/autopilot systems.
Is it cheating? Hmmm, well let me put it this way: If I am getting shot at, I want to use all my resources to manage my aircraft and fight better, not to just keep the greasy side of the aircraft pointed down. Automated systems free the pilot to concentrate on what is important.
But, for the purposes of LFS... use a wheel and pedal set
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG