I once drove GT4 and Enthusia back to back on the same track with a DFP. I thought GT4 felt more natural. Don't know Forza.
Can he do 13 laps on fuel?
EDIT: lol, doesn't even matter. JPM is never going to win when you need cooperation with other drivers to stay at the front.
EDIT: lol, doesn't even matter. JPM is never going to win when you need cooperation with other drivers to stay at the front.
It's not that simple. You make it sound like any Windows software needs to run flawlessly on any Windows version that has the same Kernel32.dll.
There are many other components to an OS that differ from version to version. LFS did need some changes before it worked properly on Vista.
LFS officially supports XP and Vista, not kernel32 or XP fundamentals.
It's not up to you to decide which OS LFS devs should support.
So bottom line is: learn some manners when making a request.
No. Please elaborate the point you are trying to make.
Huh? WXPF doesn't even have joystick support according to Wikipedia. Surely this is a case of you trying to run LFS on an unsupported OS rather than some kind of LFS problem?
I mean maybe you could request WXPF support from the devs but I don't understand how you are trying to spin this into an "LFS is poorly coded" issue.
The only way to deal with this kind of problem is to find out why it's happening and then address the causes. I don't believe that these guys are born mass murderers. It's just hopeless depression mixed with a lot of anger. For some reason there are a lot of these guys in modern society.
I once saw a youtube vid of one of these beasts getting some oversteer in the mud but I can't find it anymore.
So your physics engine is really ISI with some ini tweaks?
Thx.
Best looking grass ever. Chance to have a go at Todd's tyre model. I excite!
RSC has been down for hours. Can someone post the screenshots?
Yes, if you spend most of your normal driving in high gears you will indeed be putting more torque on your clutch. This has nothing to do with "low end torque" or something like that, the reason is described by wolfracer.
The question is just how much this matters. I maintain that unless the clutch is already worn out by excessive slipping it doesn't matter at all.
That is what you might think just based on the awful noise coming from a low revving engine. But in fact this is exactly how you drive for max efficiency. The reason is that the lower the revs the more throttle you will need to get the same power. And the more throttle you use the more efficient the whole combustion process is. That's actually the reason small engines are more efficient than big engines: during normal driving the smaller engine spends it's time much closer to full throttle than the big engine.
What I like to do, apart from judging by feel, is watching the cars from the outside. If you've spent countless hours of your life watching motorsports of all forms, at the track and on TV, then you get a pretty good sense of whether car behavior looks real or not. For example GT4 just looks dead while ISI looks very strange and snappy whenever a car gets into oversteer. LFS is still the only one where you can really see the car squirming for grip.
Wolfracer, you're right, to drive at a constant velocity or constant acceleration requires less torque from the engine the lower the gear is. But the thing is that this is negligible in terms of clutch wear. I think tristan was the first to point out that clutch wear is caused by clutch slipping (some racing clutches can only deal with a handful of starts but can be driven hard all day long). So you may be putting a high load on the clutch if you are in such a high gear that you need to put on throttle to stop the engine from stalling.
Low rpm torque as a characteristic of turbo engines is irrelevant here as this low end torque is only the max torque at a given rpm. The real torque is defined by the position of the driver's right foot.
Apart from that I have to say there is quite some confusion in this thread. There can't be different amounts of torque on either side of the clutch unless it's slipping. Check out Free Body Diagrams, equilibrium of forces and Newton's third law.
Low rpm torque as a characteristic of turbo engines is irrelevant here as this low end torque is only the max torque at a given rpm. The real torque is defined by the position of the driver's right foot.
Apart from that I have to say there is quite some confusion in this thread. There can't be different amounts of torque on either side of the clutch unless it's slipping. Check out Free Body Diagrams, equilibrium of forces and Newton's third law.
Last edited by J.B., .
Reuploaded due to request: Young Tiff in Group C Porsche at a test day at Silverstone.
http://rapidshare.com/files/90 ... Silverstone_Test.avi.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/90 ... Silverstone_Test.avi.html
Visiting friends eh? Sounds more like 'helping' Renault make a better simulator. New spy case anyone?
I assume Heikki means Mr Kovalainen? I see he was with Fortec in 2002 but what got him to drive the FO8 years later?
I just had a situation where utorrent was using 400 MB of physical RAM but only showing as 40 MB in both "VM Size" and "Mem Usage". So it looks like checking VM Size isn't a solution for detecting all forms of buggy crapware either.
Just did this myself and I came up with the same result as Stewart. Luckily I didn't peek at this thread before or I would probably have given up in confusion trying to understand what Tristan had done.
Another thing you may want to look at is the bending of the arms that connect to the roll bar. These are often blade shaped so that you can adjust their bending stiffness by turning them (by changing the area moment of inertia).
Another thing you may want to look at is the bending of the arms that connect to the roll bar. These are often blade shaped so that you can adjust their bending stiffness by turning them (by changing the area moment of inertia).
OT:
I don't use back buttons, only new tabs. I've still seen FF use 700 MB. I like FF and use it almost exclusively. It has a great list of features (although only you if go hunting for add-ons yourself, vanilla FF is meh) but speed, responsiveness and hardware efficiency certainly aren't on that list.
For example one thing FF really needs is dual core support. It's so annoying that using the tab I'm on always gets slow and laggy whenever FF is loading other tabs in the background. But somewhere I read an article by a FF dev who thinks that multi-threading sucks and we won't see it in FF any time soon...
With many FF fanboys I get the impression that they don't really care about the software itself, they just think "hey, it must be great and fast stable and all that because open source is so great and Microsoft is so evil".
I don't use back buttons, only new tabs. I've still seen FF use 700 MB. I like FF and use it almost exclusively. It has a great list of features (although only you if go hunting for add-ons yourself, vanilla FF is meh) but speed, responsiveness and hardware efficiency certainly aren't on that list.
For example one thing FF really needs is dual core support. It's so annoying that using the tab I'm on always gets slow and laggy whenever FF is loading other tabs in the background. But somewhere I read an article by a FF dev who thinks that multi-threading sucks and we won't see it in FF any time soon...
With many FF fanboys I get the impression that they don't really care about the software itself, they just think "hey, it must be great and fast stable and all that because open source is so great and Microsoft is so evil".
Last edited by J.B., .
Thx, that kind of helped.
What I basically got out of the article is that both "VM Size" and "Mem Usage" are pretty inaccurate ways to tell you if you're running out of RAM. But if you are running out of RAM, which you can notice by harddisk thrashing and the "available physical memory" value, then "VM Size" is (sometimes? always?) the better indicator of who the culprit is.
Right?
Last edited by J.B., .
What does it mean? I thought Virtual memory was pagefile.sys not real RAM?
Get Firefox is about the most clueless advice you can give someone with RAM problems.
I recently had the same problem where RAM was full but Taskmanager processes didn't add up. In my case MS Virtual PC was the culprit. I guess you just need to close the programs one by one to see which one is using all the RAM.
I recently had the same problem where RAM was full but Taskmanager processes didn't add up. In my case MS Virtual PC was the culprit. I guess you just need to close the programs one by one to see which one is using all the RAM.
This was the first time I can remember that I thought of starting up NASA TV in time. I watched quite a lot of the pre show but of course at the time of the actual launch I got lagged out like crazy. 
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG