Judging from some real data I've seen it would be more like 20 to 40, the faster the corner, the higher the difference.
I knew about it but hadn't looked at it until just a moment ago: Surface temps are indeed more dynamic, the LFS physics model never fails to surprise. The main difference to the data I've seen would be that the LFS temps don't cool nearly as much on the straights as they should. Maybe needs more advanced wind cooling model?
About the Grand Prix: I think it would be sad if Hamilton were to lose the title due to such a silly mistake. But as long as it isn't a Ferrari I'm fine.
And I'd love to know who's idea it really was to stay out that long. But of course letting the public get any info from team radios would be unthinkable for F1. I mean even NASA lets you listen in on live spacewalks but this is F1 y'know...
Hamilton is either ultra light or just completely pwned the opposition. Alonso is whining again ("championship was decided off track") and race is 90% rain probability. Which doesn't mean it will be exiting as we saw last week where rain didn't help anyone to keep up with Lewis.
And I liked the live tyre temperature thingy where you could see how the temps vary with tyre force. In LFS the temps are much less dynamic. I wonder if Scawen has any good data on that?
I just tried the new Sega Rally demo as I used to love to drive it at the arcade. Don't waste your time. No steering wheel support and chase only view.
About the race, it was a fine performance by LH, the only part I didn't like was his restart antics. I can imagine it had something to do with him still being angry about the first corner in spa though.
Alonso struggled to keep up and then threw it away. Amazing how much his reputation for being the guy who never makes mistakes has disintegrated this season. LH will be a worthy champion. I just wonder how he's going to keep his motivation up in the following years.
GB: a unit shortsighted computer scientists came up with when they realized that 2^10=1024 bytes were almost the same as 1000 bytes. Problem is that the larger the amount of data is, the higher the error. Saying that 1024 bytes is about the same as 1000 bytes is an error of 2.4%. But saying that 1 GB is about the same as 1 000 000 000 Bytes is an error of 7.4 %.
Gigas and megas have been around for ages, computer geeks were silly to think they could create new definitions without even allowing for distinction between their new definitions and the SI conventions. And it's not very useful. If I have two 700 MB files, how much is that together? According to computer guys it's 1.36718 GB instead of 1.4 GB. So who's silly?
Zoom Player, Power DVD, Theatertek. All are payware players that are making money. And VLC is for noobs. Bad interface, few options, poor performance with HD and interlaced content.
It's not small. I have one of the panels that is praised to death on the review sites (hp w2207) and I have to adjust the monitor height if I lean back in my seat. The problem is vertical, not horizontal.
Not sure what to vote. First of all I would love real tracks but I don't think we need modders to make them. The devs should be in control of the content as long as they are still working on LFS.
Saying that the small LFS community needs mods to survive in the long run is just plain wrong and backwards. LFS has been going strong for a lot longer than any of the competitors' games and the number of active players is a lot larger than in the competing games. I don't know where the rumour that LFS is a small niche of the sim racing community keeps coming from.
Having seen it again my oppinion hasn't changed. There's a difference between using the full racing line because one feels entitled to do so, and going so wide that two wheels are on the grass for the sole purpose of making another car leave the track.
EDIT: argh, turns out it was the IE setting. I had previously ruled this out because it didn't change when I pressed ctrl and +. But apparently that hotkey is Firefox only.
But doesn't the fact that we can accelerate the LFS physics x32 tell us that it is in fact the graphics, not the physics, that are eating up the CPU cycles?
Already tried it. Helps, but doesn't solve the problem.
And another thing I learned since my last post: the Dell 20" doesn't accept 50 Hz HDTV input (as in european DVB), only 60 Hz. So in summary: if you want a PC monitor that can display HDTV content: forget it! Nobody cares about it, even prad.de won't tell you about the problems.