Yes, I do know how it is with FXR on rallycross. It all goes to show that collisions are still a major problem in LFS. IRL, a car like that will have serious issues on bumpy rallycross circuits and it all goes to show that the physics in LFS is still very much incomplete, especially in the collsion depeartment. Ever tried negotiating a speedbump with a Honda Civic lowered 3 inches? That's the kind of problem we're dealing with. Yes, IRL, a car like FXO CAN be adapted for rally use, but not without EXTENSIVE modifications. Just trying to keep things realistic. If LFS is just another NFS GAME then it's all fine, but it's LFS aka a Racing SIMULATOR.
With the RB4, all we need is a bit more power, a better powerband and more suspension travel (from the current 200mm to 250mm). The roll cage is just pure graphics in LFS anyway. And the truth is we can't come close to simulating modern rallycar performance without dual rate (progressive ) suspension. Without progressive suspension and proper turbo behavior for now, a special 300hp RB4 with more suspension stroke will do just fine.
Last time I checked they did have ice, but it was for testing only and was NEVER publically released.
Exactly what LFS needs. Keeps both rally guys and drifters happy. 
Embrace your LFS racing geekdom people!
Without geeks, there won't be computers to run LFS on, let alone anyone to come up with the very IDEA of LFS.
Without geeks, there won't be computers to run LFS on, let alone anyone to come up with the very IDEA of LFS.
Which side you drive DOES affect performance, especially on Ovals where one turns one way only. In some oval race series, the rules stipulate that a choice must be between more inside corner mass percentage and more downforce.
The effecs won't be ENORMOUS over one lap or even a few laps, but in close oval races (and oval races tend to be REAL close) every fraction of a second counts.
The effecs won't be ENORMOUS over one lap or even a few laps, but in close oval races (and oval races tend to be REAL close) every fraction of a second counts.
That's one of my chief points all along. If we have an RB4 vs FXO race on a tarmac circuit, then adding ballast to the FXO would do wonders to bring closer and truely better racing. But when we penalize a consistant winner of a one make race in LFS, it just doesn't make much sense. All cars of the same model in LFS are identical. FZR == FZR in LFS, no matter who's driving. Setups do vary, but that's part of racing too since even NASCAR allows different exact setups for individual drivers, despite of all their restrictions such as permissable spring wire diameter ranges. The performance potentials for the same car in LFS are all the same and the only real determinants racing victory are efficient setups and, of course, driver skill, concentration and strategy (all these factors are of equal impotance). All this is barring luck, of course (e.g. a wrecker hell bent on wiping you out r someone makes an error causing a whole pack of closely racing cars to crash, etc).
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Reason : Completeness
Yes, you're right about these things and I do agree with them (because they're true).
And snow is a whole different creature to ice...But last time I checked, I remember the devs do have a simulation of icy surfaces, though it was only used for their own internal development.
By the way, I'll love to have a proper ice track too. Brings a whole new style of racing to LFS.
Problem is, ice doesn't handle the same as mud. And that is one FLAT track. And ice racing needs studded tires if anyone's going to drive at faster than granny speeds, tires we don't have yet (hopefully).
Last edited by Jamexing, .
What a waste of a such a great, fun to drive car.
They could REALLY use a lesson in decent marketing. Don't bet on any positive changes though.
Cars, fine ,they are NOT final. But tracks? well, they haven't changed AT ALL since the beginning of S2 and we've only gained 2 new layouts on the same track (AS) since patch S, T and U. Speaking of excuses.
You got to be kidding. The FXR aka no ground cleareance/no suspension travel/unsuitable bodykit car for rallycross? How are we going to deal with bumps if the wheels hang up in the air and the car gets hung up on the bumps thanks to that ultra-low body kit? It has the power and drivetrain, but the rest of the package turns it to mush.
The best practical bet we have now is hopefully they turn up with a rally-prepped RB4 with WRC levels of power and performance. Just being sensible.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Seesh, I've not mentioned those things for a long time and you guys are still running this chauvunism crap? If someone comes up with an old suggestion over and over again such as this ballast thing that crops up any time car balance issues are mentioned, OK. If I mention the really serious driving related issues such as incomplete suspension modelling and aero modelling, not OK. Speaking of double standards...
illepall OR you have NOT read what I've said for the past few weeks at all...
Well, can't remember the last time F-1 cars run ballast beyond the minimally required weight. There's only 1 single seater in each class to choose from, so why do we need ballasts? Imagine adding ballasts to Alonso's/Kimi's car just to slow them down and let mediocre jerks like Scott Speed dominate the show. Rewarding mediocrity and punishing excellence, something that's WAY too prevalent in this already crazy world.
illepall Ballast can be double edged sword. It will slow you down in the straights simply because F = ma, but for some cars it could be used to improve weight distribution and actually IMPROVE handling. And yes, IRL, more normal force on the tires DOES mean more grip (up to the point that load sensitivity gets obvious causes the nomal force/grip curve to flatten and eventually decline as the tire disentigrates). Your cornering speeds won't increase with weight of course, but with mass distibuted better you'll end up with a car that's actually more balanced than normal. Ever tried RB4 rallycrossing with a full load of passengers? Close to 50/50 mass distribution + excellent, neutral setup to take advantage of this = great handling rallycar. Just wish it had 320hp and we'll have a great to drive rallycar, but that's a different story.
Let's just settle this once and for all. For road cars, use passenger ballasts. Well, some of us have alrady figured out that even the horribly unbalanced TBO class can be quickly remedied with a few extra passengers in the FXOs. And I'm all for ballasts for the race cars (the XFR, UFR and GTRs) if it's used to balance the cars' performance instead of punishing competent drivers (aka abused). Yes, I'm very aware that JGTC does this, but it could go a long way to explaining why Japan has NOT come up with Aryton Sennas, Alain Prosts or Micheal Schumachers. What's the point of exceptional performance when they are just going to punish your excellence anyway.
Ballast for balancing -> +infinity
Ballast for punishing drivers that win fair and square -> -infinity
The effects of fuel depends on the % of weight of a car that is fuel weight, the greater the % the greater the effect and vice-versa.
Honestly I don't see what this thread has to do with the improvement of anything. This should be in the general/race discussion area, not the improvement suggestons area.
Honestly I don't see what this thread has to do with the improvement of anything. This should be in the general/race discussion area, not the improvement suggestons area.
I really can't see a logical reason why this thread should exist at all. Maybe I should do the SEARCH BEFORE YOU POST (aka read through hours worth of threads and posts) routine...
We can ALREADY add weight in increments of 70kg (passengers) and we can tweak the last bit of weight by increasing the fuel load. For instance, if a race is for 10 laps and each lap uses 2% fuel, you could easily get a car to run a ballast by simply adding say 25kg worth of fuel more than necassary to finish the race, since every unpenalized car would run very close to the absolute minimum anyway.
Why fuss over a feature that's already there and call it an "improvement suggestion"? This additional weight "idea" has been floating around and suggested for longer than most of us can even remember, so why this repeat?illepall
We can ALREADY add weight in increments of 70kg (passengers) and we can tweak the last bit of weight by increasing the fuel load. For instance, if a race is for 10 laps and each lap uses 2% fuel, you could easily get a car to run a ballast by simply adding say 25kg worth of fuel more than necassary to finish the race, since every unpenalized car would run very close to the absolute minimum anyway.
Why fuss over a feature that's already there and call it an "improvement suggestion"? This additional weight "idea" has been floating around and suggested for longer than most of us can even remember, so why this repeat?
illepallAs for which supercar from hyperactive's list I would choose:
1. Lamborghini Murcielago
2. Ferrari F50
3. Maserati MC12
4. Ferrari 360 CS
5. Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR
and some of my own:
6. McLaren F1 GTR Longtail
7. Jaguar XJ220 (the original design aka V12 4WD monster, not the diappointing production model)
8. Saleen S7 twin turbo
9. Ford GT90 (the 720hp 5 speed prototype that looks like NASA's work)
10. Ferrari 430
1. Lamborghini Murcielago
2. Ferrari F50
3. Maserati MC12
4. Ferrari 360 CS
5. Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR
and some of my own:
6. McLaren F1 GTR Longtail
7. Jaguar XJ220 (the original design aka V12 4WD monster, not the diappointing production model)
8. Saleen S7 twin turbo
9. Ford GT90 (the 720hp 5 speed prototype that looks like NASA's work)
10. Ferrari 430
Last edited by Jamexing, .
That's the kind of car LFS lacks and needs. If you drive the RA/FZ0 after a stint in that car, you'll say something along the lines of:
"My, this bloody thing doesn't even move!"
Yes, the gaping hole aka MR supercar.
This option actually offers us the most interesting choice. If we get a mid-engined 600hp 3.0L V6 parallel twin turbo car with 4WD, we could end up using the same chassis for both rallying and on-road supercar applications. The rally version would be LFS's equivalent of group B car whereas the road car would be the supercar. Both will fill 2 gaping holes in LFS's current car lineup.
In essence, we get 2 cars with 1 basic chassis.
Get the RA, give it an integrated roof, ground effect, a rear wing, 315/30/18 rear tires, 235/40/18 fronts and give it a twin parrallel turbo 3.8L V6 that makes 550hp. Weight is 1050kg empty, 40/60 F/R mass distribution.
It'll fill the gapping hole that's in the current lineup of LFS cars: The mid-engined rear drive supercar (e.g. Ferrari Enzo, McLaren F1, etc).
It'll fill the gapping hole that's in the current lineup of LFS cars: The mid-engined rear drive supercar (e.g. Ferrari Enzo, McLaren F1, etc).
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Well, until the physics are practically complete and we could actually start modding the cars to experiment without the trouble of physics changes, we just honestly can't know for sure.
Some cars aren't raced too often for all kinds of reasons. Some many think particular cars are too hard to race well. Some cars aren't use because some think they're too painfully slow to be exciting. GTRs are so popular simply because they're fast enough to be exciing yet still not being too hard to drive. The BF1 is a great drive, but it's more suited to the Micheal Schumachers among LFS racers. That is ,if we're going to have a race that even remotely resembles a real Grand Prix. In the end, there are all sorts of reasons why some cars and tracks are so popular yet others are neglacted.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
True to quite an extent, though with more power and grip (aka higher speeds), things tend to get more "interesting" (aka unforgiving).
There is the possibility of separate power and chassis classes. For instance, 280hp class, 300hp class. Or we can use it as a balancing tool. For instance, the XR GTT vs FXO race could be run with 10 extra hp for the XR GTT to even things up a bit. All this, of course, requires servers to possess the option to specify power limits for specific cars. In essence, this is sort of like a ballast sytem in reverse, speeding the unfairly slow cars up instead of slowing the fast cars down. Imagine a souped up XR GTT vs RA race.
Anyway, it's actually a bit too early to worry about these things now, but engine modification could open up both a whole new can of worms AND a new world of possibilities
320hp TBOs aren't exciting enough?
320hp RB4 + rallycross + more suspension travel + dual-rate springs = BLISS
Car modification has been mentioned here for maybe as log as this forum existed. I'm not really against it, since when implementd well it simply offers another range of options for setting up the car. For instance, a big and laggy high pressure turbo is great for circuits that need high end power (e.g. Ashton GP) but useless for a circuit like South City, where mid range power is more essential for exiting its relatively slow corners.
However, for the time being, we just have to wait until all the major physics problems solved/minimized before we can reasonably think about such things. For instance, what's the point of changable wings when aero isn't close to finalization?
No, no one really tries to mess the airflow behind the car. It's just a result of the immense region of turbelance generated from the lower surfaces of the rear wing, coupled with the low pressure region generated by the body's own drag. In essence, F-1 cars are like barn doors from the drag coefficent point of view. Don't be surprised if a behind car suddenly gains a lot of straight line speed. The drag of downforce cars is so large that even a small % drop in the air pressure ahead translates to significantly greater net forward proplusion force in absolute terms.
The reason they don't keep too close, especially for downforce reliant cars such as F-1, is the fact that the loss of downforce is a much greater concern than the lack of drag. Turbelant airflow doesn't stay attached to the front wing. For the car behind, this is felt as massive loss of downforce both front and rear. It's felt mostly as increased understeer and worsened braking.
The heavy relaince on downforce is why bumper to bumper racing is impossible in current F-1. The downforce loss makes it impossible for the car too close behind to brake and corner as well as the car ahead. Ultimate realism would require both CFD(computational fluid dynamics) integrated with structural deformation modelling (wing flex) in real time, but this is obviously too computautionally intensive for anything short of a supercomputer.
All this is of course better understood with wind tunnel data and CFD studies. And LFS's aero is still rather simplistic, so we'll just wait and see what happens on the next physics update.
Hmm. Paris-Dakar Rally!
Nothing like a 6000+mile run in 50+ celcius.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG