Youtube encodes using the crappy sorensen codec supplied by flash and there is nothing you can do about. You could give youtube HDTV quality and it would make no difference.
It's a force going in a sideways direction. Nothing more, nothing less. Tyres do the same thing. And yes, if you just take a car and add a rear rudder the balance will shift to understeer just as it would if you put stickier tyres on the rear.
EDIT: after giving it some more thought I could imagine that there might be issues in terms of control and stability as ajp71 hinted. So, as I said, it would be an interesting thing to test.
Last edited by J.B., .
No. The side forces add, don't substract.
Don't take it the wrong way, I wish you all the best. If money isn't a problem then go for it as soon as you can!
Could this be made optional? 1% steps are too small for quick adjustments during races and I would have to redo my scripts to change it back to 5%. ATM I map two wheel buttons to ctrl+F7 and ctrl+F8 whenever I go into the live menus and ctrl+f7 and ctrl+f8 are set to /press left and /press right by autoexec.lfs.
Come to think of it I would just have to create two new script files and set ctrl+f7 and ctrl+f8 to /run newfile. So not that much hassle after all but I'll just post this anyway, maybe it's interesting to someone.
Another thing to watch out for. Hardly any of the widescreen screens I've looked at had any kind of Aspect Ratio control. That means that if you feed it anything other than 1680x1050 the image will be stretched and distorted to fullscreen without you being able to influence it. So if you plan to play games that don't support 16:10 or want to connect 16:9 devices to your screen (PS3, HDTV box, HD-DVD player etc.) you need to make sure the screen has AR control.
Dell screens have AR control and does quite decent scaling so you can even use non-native resolutions for games that suffer in terms of fps. And (most of them) don't use TN panels.
Dell screens have AR control and does quite decent scaling so you can even use non-native resolutions for games that suffer in terms of fps. And (most of them) don't use TN panels.
I was just adding pretty much the same point to my above post while you were writing. So I guess the question we want to answer is "how much money did certain drivers spend before they got picked up by big money and where did that money come from?".
I think that whatever the answer is, it would be a value that is high enough to be able to say that an avarage family can't do it. I can't see a way to get any hard facts on this but think of it this way. If average families could do this wouldn't there be a lot more people that would actually give it a try? I don't know of anyone in my whole former school (1000 pupils) who have done any real karting. And I would estimate the average income of the families to be slightly above average.
I've never ever heard of anyone running competitivley for anything close to that kind of money.
The only way I can see to do it, is to go karting at a young age financed by parents, and be lucky enough to get picked up by someone like Ron Dennis or Martin Hines or Gerhard Noack although I would still argue that your parents would have to be relatively well off to be able to get you into a position where you would be able attract these kind of people.
The only way I can see to do it, is to go karting at a young age financed by parents, and be lucky enough to get picked up by someone like Ron Dennis or Martin Hines or Gerhard Noack although I would still argue that your parents would have to be relatively well off to be able to get you into a position where you would be able attract these kind of people.
Last edited by J.B., .
Still doesn't sound realistic to me, the amount of money involved is just too much. The typical young driver today is paying several 100 000€ for FBMW by age 16 or 17, after years of karting. I can't see how an average person can compete with that by sacrificing time and getting a job. Club racing and maybe karting, yes, but club racers don't become professionals. And when you are at the karting age it would be illigal for you to get a proper job anyway so it is the wealth of the parents that decides.
Last edited by J.B., .
To sacrifice you need to have something to sacrifice in the first place. Google indicates that average income in Europe is something like 30 000$ per year. How are you going to buy and race a FF with that? Or how are you going to buy a house that you can remorgage to go racing?
Relative terms. IIRC Irvine did his first race at 17 years of age in an FF that his father owned. Certainly nobody I would see as an average earner would be able to do that. Don't know any details on Caroll though.
Don't want to sound too negative but if you don't have the rescources to go karting, how do you expect to be able to race cars? Ever noticed that there are no from rags to riches stories in motorsport? Schumacher probably comes closest but even he had enough financial support from his dad to get him started with karting in the first place.
EDIT: forgot to answer your question. You'll never learn as much in a sim as you would in real karting but I do believe sims can be used as basic talent indicator. If you do alright in terms of speed you will probably have the capability to do alright in RL too.
EDIT: forgot to answer your question. You'll never learn as much in a sim as you would in real karting but I do believe sims can be used as basic talent indicator. If you do alright in terms of speed you will probably have the capability to do alright in RL too.
Last edited by J.B., .
He's asking for airplane type rudders to create sideforce, which would be added to the tyre sideforce to enable higher cornering speeds.
These rudders would of course also create drag. Now let's assume the drag vs force efficiency for the rudder is the same as the efficiency of the normal wings. If you think about it you will see that, as long as the tyre has a friction coefficient larger than 1, it would be better to add aerodynamic downforce than sideforce.
But since these kind of movable aerodynamic devices are illegal in every racing series I know there's no point in adding them to LFS although it would be interesting.
These rudders would of course also create drag. Now let's assume the drag vs force efficiency for the rudder is the same as the efficiency of the normal wings. If you think about it you will see that, as long as the tyre has a friction coefficient larger than 1, it would be better to add aerodynamic downforce than sideforce.
But since these kind of movable aerodynamic devices are illegal in every racing series I know there's no point in adding them to LFS although it would be interesting.
Technology evolves. If you are racing with one mechanic and no engineer then you won't be learning anything about data and setup so you wouldn't be preparing for modern motorsport. And I really can't see anyone coming through the ranks without decent baking, unless we go back as far as the 60's.
I would guess that's what Formula Master did.
I would guess that's what Formula Master did.
Of course they can't get aero or tyres perfect but we don't know how close they can get. Aero wouldn't be realtime but they could use CFD and the wind tunnel to create loads of data and then drive the sim with this data. And on the tyres side there's no doubt that Bridgestone and Michelin know more than anyone else about the physics.
Hopefully in time more info will become available about the simulator.
Hopefully in time more info will become available about the simulator.
Maybe they should?
Seriously though, the thing cost 60 million pounds and LH has done more than 1000 h in it so I believe it is more advanced than you think.
Judging from what I've read it sounds like more than that to me. I think they are testing setups and helping the drivers to improve their ability to adapt to setup and condition changes and probably even virtually testing new parts.
If they were only using the simulator for the sort of things you mention then there wouldn't be much point in PDLR and Paffett, as test drivers, spending so much time in it.
If they were only using the simulator for the sort of things you mention then there wouldn't be much point in PDLR and Paffett, as test drivers, spending so much time in it.
I agree that cost cutting in general isn't a bad thing but you can't tailor a whole series towards the financial desires of the drivers. That's what club racing is for. Professional Motorsports should always try to have a right to exist from a technological point of view as well as from a sporting and spectator's point of view. This means you don't go from carbon tubs to steel frames as nobody would take the series seriously.
I'm also a bit more cynical about drivers and financial backing. Motorracing always has been and always will be a very expensive sport. To make it through the ranks you will always need substatial backing and there has never been a professional racing driver who came from a family of average or lower than average wealth or income. Outside of F1 and NASCAR hardly any drivers have real sponsors as in companies that are paying purely for the marketing exposure rather than because of close family ties between the company and the driver. That's why IMO cost cutting shouldn't be overrated as racing can never get cheap enough to truley let pure talent be the deciding factor.
Formula Master has come up with a series that is comparable to F3 in terms of technology and laptimes at much lower costs so I think you're barking up the wrong tree in terms of cost cutting.
I'm also a bit more cynical about drivers and financial backing. Motorracing always has been and always will be a very expensive sport. To make it through the ranks you will always need substatial backing and there has never been a professional racing driver who came from a family of average or lower than average wealth or income. Outside of F1 and NASCAR hardly any drivers have real sponsors as in companies that are paying purely for the marketing exposure rather than because of close family ties between the company and the driver. That's why IMO cost cutting shouldn't be overrated as racing can never get cheap enough to truley let pure talent be the deciding factor.
Formula Master has come up with a series that is comparable to F3 in terms of technology and laptimes at much lower costs so I think you're barking up the wrong tree in terms of cost cutting.
It's not supposed to be for hobby racers, it's for drivers that want to make a career in racing. So why not use modern technology? Drivers on a shoestring budget won't be able to move on to F3 anyway.
They still exist, in fact one of Ludwig's old threads is on the front page. http://www.west-racing.com/forums/index.php?act=SF&f=1 Other interesting things to look for: Flame wars involving a person who is now very well known.
I just did about 50 laps with a best of 1:27. Didn't know I was that slow. 
Might try again tomorrow.
Might try again tomorrow.It's useless. Transfering data to the card via the PCI bus and then waiting for the results to return takes a lot longer than using the CPU.
Last edited by J.B., .
Here's an older, more detailed interview on the aubject of the future of F1: http://www.fia.com/mediacentre ... 6/November/161106-01.html
One of the scariest quotes for me is
and the part about TC in the new article confirms that the powers that be don't take into account the effects of modern technology on the actual sporting element of motorsport which is the driving.
I can understand that motorsports has to change if it wants to survive, that means it should look at becoming more enviromentaly friendly and relevant to technology outside of racing. But at the same time it is important to keep the fans interested and to make sure it stays an actual sport which means driver helping systems must be restricted. If electronics are going to make the car go through corners with the driver doing little more than requesting the turn direction of the corner then there won't be much point in keeping F1 alive.
One of the scariest quotes for me is
and the part about TC in the new article confirms that the powers that be don't take into account the effects of modern technology on the actual sporting element of motorsport which is the driving.
I can understand that motorsports has to change if it wants to survive, that means it should look at becoming more enviromentaly friendly and relevant to technology outside of racing. But at the same time it is important to keep the fans interested and to make sure it stays an actual sport which means driver helping systems must be restricted. If electronics are going to make the car go through corners with the driver doing little more than requesting the turn direction of the corner then there won't be much point in keeping F1 alive.
Last edited by J.B., .
Thanks for that link, I've been wanting find out anything about that simulator for a long time now. Members of McLaren have been mentioning it a lot for a couple of years now but the press has completely failed to show any interest. Most people probably thought they were talking about a Playstation.
So now we know what it cost, that it's probably a full motion rig (the price!), that it has a physics basedl tyre model (deformation is mentioned so no magic formula), and that it is used for a lot more than to help the drivers memorize the tracks.
So now we know what it cost, that it's probably a full motion rig (the price!), that it has a physics basedl tyre model (deformation is mentioned so no magic formula), and that it is used for a lot more than to help the drivers memorize the tracks.
Last edited by J.B., .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG